to take the train the issue before this court is not whether mr david thomas is intitled to the second injury fine because he has one hundred percent disability to both  what's wrong with that we don't know the basis upon which the bridge we do not know the basis upon which the secretary of state issued demands license at one point he testified that he just called the we have no evidence to support the hours he obtained license this although we did try to get the information i do not know how the man has gotten his license but if you look at the entry to be entered by the left i clearly hand movement is the only visual acu twenty seven deep at the time of the arbitration hearing at the time of the one nine hundred eighty preceeding his past was hand movement clearly by the standards set forth by the by the courts this man has a hundred percent courts could take into consideration the fact that he may have a license but i don't think that they should base it on the fact that the mansion still was driving he probably shouldn't be driving eat talks about how he's a driver is held onto his license mainly because his wife is also think it might even he may have done that but the the issue then becomes on was his visual acuity at that time at the time he had the nineteen age he is visual acuity was at hand movement so even if probably should have had a that's correct i think those are the two red herrings that the commission i looked at they looked at whether or not you've stopped working and whether or not he had a driver's license they did not look to the injury of the man's eye which is a left eye clearly clearly at the time of the by any standard that has can only see hand movement which is two blasts and twenty four hundred vs one hundred percent disability and i am for them to say the commission to say that he had a ninety percent because he has a only is back compensable at one hundred percent and i suggest our current we don't know what standards the years that but but that's the medical evidence that's correct that's correct so you focus on the medical evidence exactly  his vision that was before the before the arbitration hearing said the man was industrial light by that estate a blind with m c i his doctor he should not have gotten a driver's license we're back to the stor beat the dead horse but the secretary of state issued i did clearly stay and that's so that's what i doing i want everybody seems to hung up on the fact say as secretary of state without looking at the evidence and i'm asking that this court look at the evidence and you'll find that the of use the life died after the initial arbitration that decision should be affirmed and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence i've usually we have off subsequent hearing under section one thousand a for further evidence and was submitted about further complications that be and in you can infer from the nature of the work that there is an i that would be you all that the nature of his work was that he worked on a computer now he did have a larger screen but he was able to function with that and he did feel that's correct and and by the way you know i would submit that the commission only gave him ninety percent you know so it's not as though they're saying he is only injured to fifty percent towards it has an impact and they've gone all the way to ninety percent and they're saying that this use that he makes in continuing to work and using the computer and in driving and didn't apparently submitting to the secretary of state medical forms that indicate he has the ability to that the ninety percent which the commission awarded in the earlier proceeding there was only evidence to support the seventy five percent loss but that the subsequent one nine hundred eighty perceiving i believe that the ninety percent of ward decisions of the commission work against you know not against manifest weight of the evidence i would you know i would like to address the issue that in c i has has brought up and i think mr thomas has to whereas if this court would reverse and find that there is one hundred percent loss of the left eye what to do in that case and our position is that the commission has never made any findings about the loss of use made on this is a court review obviously not one to make findings in the first place so that would be what we asked in the alternative to that if this court would reverse the commission and what declined to remain and it will recess court to find that there was not a complete and total permanent loss of use of the right and i think i was looking at the reply brief earlier this morning and i think thousand and one measure twenty over eighty in two thousand and two it measured twenty over eighty and april of two thousand and three it measured twenty over seventy and at that point the left eye was twenty over eighty so it was better at that point than the l in august of two thousand and three it was twenty over seventy and two thousand and four was twenty over seventy and in truth thousand and five it was two thousand and twenty over sixty and so i think you meant as i believe very straightforward and we would address this court to affirm the commission's findings of a ninety percent loss of a lifetime i if this court for some reason what reversed that would ask for  commission to make the findings on the ride back and in the alternative if this court would decline that would find that the right i did not have a total complete and permanent loss and therefore the second injury fund would not be liable for one cent in this carrying since you have a trace in hearing he was provided a magnifying computer screen in order to perform his function and so therefore he was able to compensate and i don't think a man who continued to