arbitrator the commission and the circuit court that he was it is our contention that as a matter of law there is no basis for even considering maintenance when an individual is released to his full duty job  know you can't come back because we never received the clarification i believe it was specifically that they had asked dr and sell the player to try what it was that he could or couldn't do and i've never received clarification of it i think the letter return it the essential functions of his job there really is no dispute with respect to what he was cleared to do the dispute or the confusion seems to be that this particular employer in all honesty there is no question but that and adjust your made some errors with respect to the handling of this case however if you go back to the basic medical situation as it existed both in early october of two thousand and seven and even if we chose to in september of two thousand and eight when he again undergoes a function he has you valuation and is again released but the bottom line conclusion each and every time is the same banner was not going to take him back seven days later he then did absolutely nothing by his own admission until march of two thousand and eight when he then says he applied he filled out one so let's go back and get another absi bill there was no that was after he'd already found a job that she told me not to take right he goes and you find that a boss driving job at ten dollars and fifteen cents an hour we've got a guy with no i has made indorsement he's a motorcycle and safety instructor you know c p r he doesn't apply for anything that has anything to do with his experience his education his same essential functions of this job and said you can go back to doing math but let's assume for the sake of argument that the inner for whatever reason isn't going to take the bottom line is what entitles him to maintenance by it is a full time average job search national t v tells us he is not entitled to either vocational placement or maintenance where he has sufficient skills to find suitable employment and where he chooses not to use any of his education or skills to look for a job where he chooses to not look for work within the absi either it is clear to him to heavy duty how can you then turn around and say where he chooses not to even look for work i mean we've got a guy that takes the first job he can find a ten dollars and fifteen cents an hour presumably to build up that wage differential and after by his own admission looking for absolutely nothing from october ninth two thousand and seven when he knows the answer is not going to take him back to her doesn't exist as far as he's innocent i'm having a real problem with this part of your argument because of them and he finds a job people that do border her to try to help him get a job probably not to look until just a few weeks before the arbitration doesn't really explain what he didn't do before she got involved he found a job well but they didn't want to be with the differential well the arbitrator nor the commission addresses whether or not he was diligent in looking for work whether or not oh yeah we're going round and round with justice stewart says he found the job but that wasn't the issue the issue was whether or not he was entitled to maintenance for this this rather substantial sixty five week period and my position is that under illinois law he is not entitled to maintenance where he is cleared to full duty if he chooses not to look if he chooses to take a lower paying job if he chooses to huge mistake and i have absolutely no idea and had they had the advice of counsel they i would certainly have not i would have said he was cleared of full duty and he knows he was cleared full duty back in october of two thousand and seven  by insisting on a second half c e that oh by the way gets him to the exact same result we all deal with these these these situations you know had he had a sick child and not been able to look for work for a month with it would i in good conscience be able to look at you and say his failings are somehow somebodies farm there is no question but then employing tammy lynn the last of the point they did was a huge mistake i suspect they have some sort of national contract with nurse case manager vo from us then it's all ok why is it ok because that's not really the issue here it's not whether or not he was entitled to rely on it it's rather maiden's would ever be awarded bill in any instance where somebody has already been cleared back to wait or other limitations we're in an entirely different situation here we're not we never get to the point we never get a day because he isn't he's not a pro candidate who national t he's not suspending the temperature total disability nobody has any problem with respect to their portion of the decision the issue is what happens as of october second today is the first day of the rest of your life you are cleared  that now was the case he said coldly as of october ninth i believe as of december first two thousand and seven he had no reasonable expectation of returning back to work or being and what did he do between then and march nothing between march and june one application with a company that wasn't hiring you then he has a second f c e he's again in the same boat what does he do does he go look for to help driving jobs does he were right after that before the second after the first my position is that under illinois law you don't have to consider whether or not he's making a diligent effort you don't need to consider whether or not this job is good or that job is better for or he needs help he's not a vocal candidate there's no demand here for help in fact he's not as a matter of law in title to maintenance because what does make insists to do it exists to compensate people while they're making a full time out of her to look for work because they've been released with permanent restrictions and they cannot return back to their full duty usually who died in title to vocational situation where we would be dealing with the need to deal with those issues and we don't have the need to deal with those issues because he's cleared to will do will he testify here there was testimony by  obvious that the employer did want to take back what they were specifically responding to and using pretty much any excuse not to take him back but let's get back to the fact that he's released a heavy duty  where do you go from there we are not dealing with somebody that has what what do all of ours are these situations exist for the maintenance exist to help somebody that has got permanent restrictions that prevent them from going back to the kind of work they did before rowe placement exists to help people who don't know how to look for a job because they've done the same type of thing that they've always done wage differentials exist to compensate people because they have a permanent diminished earning capacity because of permanent restrictions he's cleared to have a duty he doesn't go back to having to he doesn't even look for  number of other things he has to be able to frequently bend stoop call they're all there and on your badge true because it's corroborated that he has stood frequently banned scott klein ok so now we know from the vice president it louis and the supervisor of the essential functions all the it says you can't do that it says he can't meet that requirement so why does the arbitrator say he has not met the essential functions of the job because the evidence  you have to first say that he was released the full duty and none of that's true because the fact finder has told significant evidence to the counter the only evidence to the country is what she said s change in the facts which you can't do even if you wanted to examine whether or not it was against the manifest weight of the evidence there is no other evidence they established it but you would so you agree with the argument there were man who's making those mistakes not my client did they want to say that he's not entitle to a benefit your honour's if she wants to speed here and tell you that as a matter of law he's not entitled to maintenance benefits in order to get to that question you first have to establish that the commission's fact finding but he was not released to the central functions of his job must be reversed and i will pos to you that you will not find evidence to the cause to establish that it's not in the record in fact we have the petitioner who tried as your honor as  out miss lawrence in her initial report if you go and look at her initial report but she evaluates my trade these are her words not mine on a scale of one to ten with ten being the highest job offer in peace there herson says he was diligent and looking for work and he's mad he doesn't stop being diligent until they tell him to stop but again i believe my client was entitle to a maintenance group mcmeen its benefits he was entitled to full cation with systems because the facts are on disputed he could not perform the essential job function he couldn't do it yes he is valid there was no inconsistency in the seat and the chill central job functions were defined by them the supervisor and the vice president if he couldn't do the essential job functions and they couldn't take for because they want to mislead the issue and say this is a matter of law when they say they just stepped you got our walk before you can run and you've got to find out if i have a finding that he was released before duty to see two thirty three of the record outlines what the essential functions are petitioners fill the job and then proceeds to clear him to each and every one of those