but i am learning more and more each time today we have an interesting case in that i usually don't appear before you to try and get you to really weigh whether or not somebody should be a man as a whole or not but that's what i'm going to do today and there's a traditional part of this argument that we're all familiar with sir it's a battle of the experts from a vocational stand but it an important case on this traditional avenue because we need to reinforce the law about how the commission has to take the petitioner as they find them as they find them to determine that the second part of this case is about injurious practice and it's a very important case in that regard as well jamie hadn't at the time of trial was a thirty seven year old woman who weighed over three hundred pounds and had been obese her entire life she finished parts of the third grade parts of the fourth grade and with the special education classes she failed to finish high school she failed to pass a ged and the vocational testing revealed based upon earlier diagnosis of dyslexia that she could only read and write at a middle school level jamie hatton's past job experience and we all know of the law to determine the abaya we have to look at age we have to look at work experience we have to take into account the eleven was minimal level best however her education lack of direction and limited job experience must be taken into consideration in march two thousand and twelve a significant job search was made  which an average of twenty seven job contacts were made per month through november two thousand and twelve she searched for jobs online and made a significant amount of in person contacts this is not the job search th you would think you want to proceed to trial it's not just insults but what the law says about proving an odd lot is that you have to take everything about her into consideration when determining whether or not she's an ocelot or a man as a whole is any indication the commission did not take everything into consideration those of the commission's decision your honor was based upon the arbitrator's decision which arbitrator found that i did not meet my burden of proof certainly on whether or not she was ob la it's an interesting decision because you sort of have to read between the lines of how we got here the first part of the decision is petitioners noncompliance with faced in the workforce is a direct result of her lack of education limited work experience and possibly her appearance as she presented over three hundred pounds based on her education experience mishap and dennis would be searching for jobs of the unskilled level of work employers even in seeking to fill these funds skill positions search for the best candidates those candidates are educated with a minimum of a ged which this hand does not have or better in june we have an overall well kept  the current state of the economy the quality of the current candidates vying for the unskilled positions has risen this had it is dennis is competing for jobs with individuals who are generally more educated and she is not even possess a ged this is a significant hindrance in and try to see the commission is charged with the great responsibility of weighing the evidence and that's not what this court has to do but when the evidence is so wrong about in your question who the vocational expert is that we should trust this court has to take a look miss richter hill if you read her testimony i'll just say what she said she testified she was a license vocational consultant which as we all know was a part of the act a clinical professional counsellor a national board certified clinical hypnotherapist i didn't get to see miss richter hill's c v before but when she said assignment limited to lying under oath in this case i'll read it to you she testified her current vocational counseling began in september of two thousand and twelve but she had been doing quote career search and vocational since one nine hundred eighty nine she was then handed a copy of her c v martis response exhibit seven she was directly asked is this a completely accurate and up to date to today's date curriculum be taped to which she said yes but later said it was missing employment with s i e u n n edwardsville testifying i'm sorry i apologize i was putting this together in a hurry yesterday it goes on she says she utilize hypnotherapy to find people jobs you know sometimes people want to regress she said you know sometimes people have introgression sometimes people have something they want in their childhood but they put it aside she was asked on direct examination whether she had been continuously doing vocational counseling since one thousand nine years the answer when she initially responded oh i've been off and on i don't think there's any one time i haven't helped somebody even if it's a friend to get a job or look over a resume so continuously last she then only later testified that was not true that she was a part time vocational counselor on the side she remembered it to be on cross examination her report in this case had an extreme  and she went and looked for jobs for my client and you know what she told them she told them my client had run her own business for twenty years first of all she would have to start a twelve justice of the business brother all these things out i did including the credibility flaws i did of this victory hill i did and if you read this opinion fourteen in your record i'm not sure i lost this case on that issue i think i lost this case on injurious practice that's what i  happened arbitrator gallagher makes no mention other than that he says what happened the arbitrator notes the opinion of respondents richter here what listen to what he actually says that literally hills testimony was  appellate court case that i can find you has global products for side of u c c the first district in two thousand the respond in that case argued that the petitioner smoking habit despite being told to quit by his treating doctors retarded his recovery post surgery does exposing the responded to pay for benefits under the act just as is the case i'm asking if i have weight loss to have smoking a his recovery in this case it appears the claimant smoked in spite of his potential impact on his recovery not because of it further the claimant did make an unsuccessful attempt to quit smoking nothing indicates that this was not a bona fide an issue with her taking dr seuss's advice and utilizing it to lose weight certain buddy of smoking is not an injury is practice in this court has recognized that then i would say i'm on better totality of the record in this case also if there's testimony because testimony she's been having her whole life there's evidence of a record of what was wrong with my client let's go back to the lombard back problem as permanent restrictions so there evidence in the record to support justice hudson position that we have to look at this under the scrutiny of the abuse of discretion but if this court says in my if this court said that somebody who disability benefits not being paid if somebody doesn't go to and get routine medical care you can't retard as you said you can't retard your own case or you're over coverage and not to the doctor and sit at home get the t v but this is a woman who was from special a reason just more thank you for your question it's a good question i think that's very speculative on the part of what the record indicates from what the one person from wal mart testified to the testimony if you look at it it is almost unbelievable to me to rely on the testimony of a wal mart witness you know what she said she said not sometimes just she said every time we have a work iraq i would ask that this honorable court find in favor of the commission's decision in its entirety upholding it that i am misshapen dentist did not meet her burden showing that she was opera merely totally disabled doing this no i want a treadmill i want surgery i don't want to do any exercises that's reasonable would you think simple walking exercises is a reasonable procedure and i may not be considered with that she would not be a candidate yesterday i pass and i don't know the protocol to be a gastric bypass patient but i assume there has to be something that they believe that you are the size of surgery with let me that they they they're going to be compliant and whatever the protocol may be i mean certainly you want somebody that you feel is wanting this and they're going to  at least a reasonable effort an honest effort and when she failed to not even do the simple this is a pass that the ass from her and both doctors saw this and let's get back there's a there's an issue here we talk about this termination at work by go back there so therefore i mean for public policy say she had to terminate her i mean who do you want anybody any clerk it's threatening you guys if they get upset absolutely not and she was in pain right you know threatening whatever ok and so the genesis of this is i am in pain and people aren't eating me we've thing there is that you asked me to read her mind i'm just asking you to look at the fact right but i felt that she was serious she scared me she scared me enough that i felt like i need to warn somebody we've seen enough shootings out here right in the public we've seen it here and all the time it's like when somebody gets a warning like that bottom line is he felt that way i can't put myself in the position of him but assuming it was my patient i would have never done that unless i felt an immediate you know there was a there was a real risk involved if i thought it was nonchalant talk right but clearly he didn't feel that way and so i mean and this lady you know and there's the record speaks about her feeling like she was a victim and that's why she didn't comply with her medical treatment and i mean if you dorn at i'm in so much pain if i don't get out of pain i'm going to go into wal mart so that's what she's that record was said to the respondents insurance carrier who called wal mart well fourteen words that's why she's not that doesn't mean she's not a parent and i think what we focus in on today is this injurious practice and i want to put some facts out some talk some facts on what happened in that way because she presented to dr suit of the weight loss doctor on september sixteenth two thousand and ten she weighed two hundred ninety four pounds dr pseudo opined she was at risk for gaining weight due to her injury and sedentary lifestyle dr sue to place the position on a die that's what happened first dr seward again saw the petitioner seven days late september twenty third he noted quote she was losing weight he further reported petitioner was drinking thirty two ounces of water per day exercise taking her medications as directed and follow the nutritional on february seventh two thousand and eleven however she began to gain weight he said that she had associated conditions of diabetes hyperlipidemia and hypertension he said that aggravating factors to this weight