we are here to stay on a case that is back and read man from this court where you had requested the commission to explain why they could reverse a wage differential and made a perm partial and essentially you wanted them to show their work so u nfortunately the commission decision that came back piers to be equally as confusing as the appear to be confusing the vocational persons roles with that of the medical doctor in determining the permanent work prescription here's a quick rundown of the case swelling within the leg at the time that he releases him he says you have permanent restrictions of essentially when you're standing for more than two hours you need to elevate the foot for forty five minutes because if the foot swells which leads to pain undergoes  restrictions except he says when he's on a speed for more than two hours he needs to elevate the leg or an additional two hours these essentially a little bit more restrictive than dr pool but essentially they're pretty similar so what we have is permanent work restrictions being given by both of them both the treating doctor and respondents section twelve examiner so the commission in decision one has said essentially first probably be the one is satisfied they say become a little confusing at least for me the commission in the second decision says the loris can solaces opinions and she's the occasional specialist regarding petitioners capability to work for the jobs he'd be incapable of working or not persuasive but she doesn't really explain what she means and what they meant by that because she based her conclusions upon the permanent work restrictions that are undisputed essentially the commission does go on two of the sons right after that they say the commission of commission says she does not have a ballot history of complaints all of her vocational conclusions are based on complaints to be used on permanent worke says commission also says misconceive i was wasn't aware the petitioner had hunted or drove a four wheeler or had problems very big greater than ninety minutes well i don't these are really relevant because all of these issues were already provided to d and they both said well this really doesn't go beyond with permanent work restrictions are so those are non issues because in fact those are issues that would have bed lesser restrictions so those are really issues that on a vocational level don't make sense as to why they would that would require that she have this information to come up with permanent work restrictions different from the bat which dr paul and dr mcfadden had already identified and in this situation the wor ational conclusions aren't based upon what he tells me if he tells me i can't do something she doesn't look at that she looks at what the permanent work restrictions are and bases her job analysis on what those permanent work prescriptions would be so when we're talking about eighty two what we're really talking about is is there a loss of earning capacity and to determine that we can do one of two ways we can either have the employee go back to the jobs he could be defined could be fifty to ten dollars per hour as compared to the job at the coal mine which was thirty plus dollars per hour so that's what she testified to as far as the labor market service now in the commission says this can solve this incredible they don't say well your labor market surveys from your rate is wrong because of this area that you searched trunk because of this instead they attacked her because they said you didn't know specifically his subjective complaints that would have led to more restrictions was she saying don't do that they also said we didn't know if some of this stuff seen on the surveillance which she said would also be irrelevant to me because if it showed pains it would have changed same doctor make bad if you've reviewed the surveillance and said that changed my work prescriptions then she would have considered that but he didn't he reviewed the surveillance in his restrictions remain identical so on a vocational level she's not being asked to reinvent the medical side of things her job is to take a medical conclusions say and then determine first of all the employable back and where he could be before we all agree that's not the case and if he's not what are the earning commission said they didn't find her credible they never really explained why on a vocational level they never said but only she did something wrong on this labor market survey as it relates to eighty one prone to determine the loss of earning capability so that's where i would say i think they've got to run this is what i'm asking with that if you reverse the arbitrator at the beginning of all this identified all of these problems i found her to be credible in determining the labor market survey so when the commission reversed they're not really explaining why they're not saying well this is wrong and the labor market survey where this is wrong and where she looked for work it doesn't make any sense to me as to why they did it so evidence or the testimony that she provided they never said it was wrong themselves it's not as though the commission said even though there was no counter opinion we don't like or don't like isn't right they simply said well medically she doesn't have all the facts well she he was doing his job search so we think that the maintenance benefit should be awarded for that time period when he's working which differential you have a trader did a great job rating on each of those time periods when it should have been maintenance versus wage differential so we're what her understanding with the with the fees associated with the hourly rate for her services and i know there was some press examination fucking about some of it being administrative and if the court should say you know straight the administrative and just do the job search portion of it i wouldn't have a problem with that because i think there was some confusion with her being able to differentiate those but to stretch the whole thing and to say well she doesn't get paid anything even though she did provided locational services in there was no by both doctors if you have permanent work restrictions that removed him from his line of work he had provided the job leads he had provided all the documentation showing he was looking for work even all the way up to the day of trial and none of those l ripoff thank you also office visits no physical therapy no surgery nothing he was off work for a year based essentially on swelling at that time but about the year following the actual day and we paid all the benefits dition her job ended by contract six months after they accidentally do that and he also knew he would be entitled to long term disability benefits which just happen to be the same amount as t t benefits he was able to collect those benefits for two years after his t t d term he collected those benefits never saw dr drew those two years never get anything all of these job search documents that he provided all after the fact they were off produce for one reason i have one thing to do here to prove his case his whole haitian falls under his a subjective statement when i'm on my feet more than two hours at a time i get significant swelling and i can't do anything as a beginning she was broadly hand in two thousand and eight and if we're going to leave her opinion why don't we just stick with her first opinion in the case back in two thousand and eight which was i can't do anything for him he should go back to college  that never occurred that never occurred he had an opportunity then based on her where was the labor market survey that why does your opinion get to change nothing changed in that case there's nothing i can do for in the labor market of you know what is the commission thank the commission we now know doesn't believe her and they have problems with the petition and ability also but it's not a question of you know she a labor market survey and we just focus on that and because of that he's entitled to the benefits everything has to be looked at in the proper context here and her testimony you know the fact that she did a labor market survey why didn't  do it three years earlier i mean what what really has changed in this scenario that it's now a wage differential case because she was sent back there  she does a labor market survey how does that prove empowerment to those benefits the fact she does a labor market survey when you read when you read her testimony she didn't know she didn't do anything she was over serious he's way over in southeastern illinois he would go over there you know once or twice but she never came over here she never went over and assisted with the job searches rethink his testimony yes i did all the job searches on my home well you know i mean you want to knock down her testimony but i mean we have an undisputed injury serious injury undisputed he can't go back to that work he can't go back home any work then the think he certainly can't go back to other heavy type work you know we have no contrary opinion by either boat rehab expert or i mean both doctors pretty much agree on the restrictions what the the basis for that and then taken to context attrition it just took himself out of labor market the job search records are just not credible if anyone who looks at those can tell very quickly they're just not credible so let's just assume that they he didn't go out and he testified i really didn't go out i just made phone calls and looked at the newspaper and i looked online and he got no assistance from him from  and their own type of those benefits and it doesn't matter whether he seen a doctor or not it's just i have it anymore but it was it was certainly there there's a lot of incentive not to go back to work not to look for a job not to mess with benefits and  is reasonable and is it credible for or when you look at all the facts that somebody should be entitled to a wage differential benefit based solely on a hard vocational specialist who really did do nothing put  sixty or eighty hours at one hundred dollars an hour and when you look at what she did didn't do it was really worth it and she just dumps it off to an associate and gives it to her to work on but the fact that she did a labor market survey depositions over four hours looking at her records and they just found her to be no credible and the totality of everything was a petitioner they found him packing a lot of credibility so and that's why i pointed out in my brief witnesses research it and it can't be more so you know sometimes you don't get another vocational specialist simply because what they're offering and someone's going around for a long time doing this it's just not that credible it's just not believable i'm the one i took a deposition and i know that you know there are a lot of problems with her testimony the fact that she gave the testimony said i did it and that's part of it but is it credible based on everything so you don't go out and always always that you had a competing opinion when you already know what the answer is going to be they took dr who's depositions  my opinion is going to change and that would have happened i was going to obviously ask him about that back if they did this your opinion that that should work because this woman is based solely on him telling you that nobody in this world other than him has ever seen commentaries their discussions about credibility of witnesses things of that nature the one thing that you did not hear from him was for labor market survey was wrong because he doesn't say that the average weekly wage that she did that jamie would end up with the fifty to ten dollars is wrong he doesn't say she looked in the wrong area he doesn't say that there's anything incorrect with how she performed the labor market survey that's all we're talking about is wro talks about petitioner well last credibility will the petitioner lack credibility how come the court said we believe the permanent restrictions to be severe enough to remove him from his line of work they said eighty one prong one was matt if he wasn't credible and they didn't believe anything that he was sullen they would have said he doesn't meet the criteria addition to any real work descriptions and oh by the way speaking of that this swelling issue this is the part of his been the  the commission's decision one never really even is any issue with trial the reason being as dr pool at several points in his deposition said i saw swelling i documented swelling it's in his deposition transcript in areas where he had swelling the other problem with this issue of swelling is if it was a big issue why didn't dr mcfadden say no restrictions in till i see swelling instead dr mcfadden on cross examination had said i can still make the work restrictions i don't need to see the swelling i can still generate those permanent work restrictions even without the c e even after seeing the surveillance i still think that there are permanent work restrictions were prescriptions more severe than back for hul so the swelling issue is a red herring that they keep not all the time when i stand up for long periods that's when it swells because this isn't an orthopedic injuries it's a masculine injury that's why the mc even supports it because he testified that whenever i'm on my feet too long the foot there's a bascule or injury here so the only way he could be feeling pain is if there's swelling so you can see throughout all of this the the defense on this hasn't been we've got a labor market survey that's different we have a number that's different from what he could be hearing instead what they're doing is they're throwing mud they're saying the loris isn't credible because she didn't have all of the permanent work prescriptions yes she did overpowers the question is not credible because he doesn't show swelling again he did what else could he do should he take pictures every time it swells up so we have fifty pictures of his legs swollen the doctor testified that it was there he had that testified that it was there they found said doesn't matter i can still get permanent work restrictions it doesn't really matter the most important part of all of this is they make allegations that essentially cheney was sitting on his hands waiting for a chat if this seems consolidates actually testified that she believed that he was permanently and totally disabled jaymes the person who said oh no no no i'm never going to become total i'm going to find a job no matter what he did finding that he did he asked family to help in the planting seasons he was able was looking for jobs and was