previously for the company which also father claim for application of benefits against the case was litigated in and tried in front of a different arbitrator in february of two thousand  decision in that case was that mr hampton was an odd lot permanent total based on the fact that he couldn't find work within a reason stable job market based on his job search sixty plus employer employers who wouldn't hire him because his knee was so bad that he ended up in the emergency room every time he tried to work for three months after the trial he got hired by my company the hotel and he was hired to launder department within a month of his employment he sustained an injury to the six now the interesting part was after his injury they did a routine drug test which was part of the union agreement and he failed that test therefore the hotel would not hire him back imprint testified in the two thousand i'm sorry in the two thousand and six arbitration hearing that he couldn't do a variety of things basically he was so limited by his new condition that he couldn't tie his shoes couldn't carry children or grandchildren couldn't go commission pretty much ignored they focused on some two thousand seven evaluation by dr goldberg who said that his condition changed or worse as a result of the accident dr sooner did the surgery dr silver listen to him dr silver susan enberg provided her first report there's no evidence of disability during that time at all there's no and there's no evidence that he looked for jobs during that time which would allow him to recover from  she says well if there's work available within his prior occupation and laundry in the hotel and he can do that otherwise you have to do a job search or  harold learn to live with his from the first case sent to her like it was in articles the second time around whatever said is the first time around said she was a he was otherwise on employable and was a candidate for vocal placement the second time around which shows  what condition their per perspective employers are you're one hundred percent correct but you're not allowed to now there there's no exemption in this election for somebody who i see is you here and then is injured you're second but that's ok i'm going to go to west and decision again the job search is one thing and he made his burden there he offered to documents i was there his family wrote his sister wrote somebody wrote didn't even know what year it was from it was in two thousand and maybe two thousand and eight maybe two thousand and nine that's two to three years after he was discharged in two thousand and six there was nothing in between to show that he had the only working to do here to do to overcome his prime occupation because he was term for drug use well known it was the job your choice right but he comes up with a job search that this within his restrictions evidently says i can't the arbitrator gives you mogwai which necessarily means he believed that he performed a job search and couldn't get a job if that point the burden shifted to you he had to do was bring in evidence that there was a job for moment the evidence came out of his own mouth he was working for his brother he was also had worked for the lakewood facility as for five to six months this guy was transit before he worked for us he's transit now he was trans in after the hearing what contenders report if you want i got his own job anyway for whatever means in the same type of work he always did which was transit nature this gentleman worked a grand total of has nothing in the evidence to refute that you have a problem i don't disagree with you however if he has a release and then my whole duty by the treating physician why do you offer of all three have two or three years in my lives is your absurd but if you say it was the same before i guess i guess the question i have is and this is that twenty five years of doing this i've never seen a case like this it definitely is that is a different kind of case i'm not saying it can't be about twice but i'm saying what changed from the first case to the second case he was able to work force for a month he had an injury he had surgery he got released and we go back to his old doctor and he says  a point it's two years post for work release look at a case where now you learn about his prior decision i guess his transcript i reading it and this guy can't tie his shoes why and i remember talking to counsel so why am i go said i can through all this it's a hero terrible decision which i truly believe was the manifest way argument is he got a work release regardless all the other opinions that came after that susan enberg and even go having reach maximum amount might be relevant as to the beginning of our ability to start to analyze this permanent this maybe table when you're sitting i think i think it is but you know for all the cases we've seen where so much stock has been put in the histories taken by treating doctors frankly i think it should apply here i mean it seems to be and usually rightfully so that if you have a choice between believing what a witness says at trial or litigants a position is well let me put it another way there's a lot of stock historically from evidentiary law through centuries put on the fact that doctors clinics they have no dog in the race what they find is usually reliable presumption that when someone speaks to their doctor they're going to tell me the truth their health is hanging in the balance right that is the piece of so i think it's a safe assumption to make that he would that what happened was as it was noted in those records this time to his benefit i usually see it it's my clients that trim it but you get to a point i made that   for the court today both times the commission found credible now it's clear to me under the facts and the law that we have a compensable accident resulted in  and certainly more carbs was removed during the procedure that is performed after our days after our injury so he consequently found a greater disability which of course is very important to all these pieces falling  place with respect to medical possible connection a worsening of this condition and the law supporting this recovery despite the fact that the man already had an injury and was already adjudicated a month old which by the way that case was settled it a permanent photo of you then it was settled in one of those it before the commission that's right that's right so we're looking at a compensable accident resulting in further disability which prevents him from performing his regular job and let's not forget up to that and to the forty pounds no fifty pounds so we have dr bush dose of finding restrictions which would prevent this man from returning to his regular job at hil chicago hence the one of the reasons for the need for the boat rehab which they didn't  was that was the one where i think the man was like tristen or something many years and then he got a job making way last doing something else and reports that they'd term used electrician job summer employment and that his earnings as electrician should be taken into account when determining whether he has a wage loss and i understand why there's a certain discomfort with this case that's why mr noble and i sat down with the arbitrator before we tried case one over the lot detail make sure you weren't all missing something here because there was that sort of unease but in the  carrier are not symmetrical and cannot be judged by the same standards so this one employee this one losses everything is nothing against which to offset it to the employer this is just one case among many the rule operates impartially in both directions today this employer carrier may be saddled with extra cost tomorrow the positions may be reversed and the employer carrier will be completely it mean i could lift it because the doctors just today i can't with forty pounds is it me i could live for he probably did before well again you just hit the nail on the head you have three different surgeons all saying the difference with my mercier though is he didn't know any of the prior history no one right answer there's evidence in favor of conclusion a and there's evidence in favor of conclusion b the commission chooses a is known as there's evidence in the record to support