watchman and at that point the job for the water partner was no longer available to him and regardless of whether or not there was a job available to him the fact of the matter was mr mr whom he was not receiving treatment of back time though he'd only been seen for evaluations and he'd been cleared by every doctor everyone involved in even claims himself but he was able to do his regular job right so you're not just being you're saying in essence the line is that if the so called rehabilitation program and but in regardless of that ultimately he is he's medically cleared to go back to his regular job and that's that's uncontroverted out and there's no other conclusion that can be drawn with regard to the period from october eighteenth two thousand it would be pretty unlikely he's going to be able to do that job but he doesn't really say he can do it just says i think it's pretty unlikely and the fact of the matter is if this point mr barr who me simply can't go back to that child because he doesn't have a job available to him anymore it's not a matter of whether he's physically able to do it or not it's a matter of the fact that this job isn't available to him anymore this is a pretty unlikely and he had to be you know good pretty good physical shape he's got  so it's a statement in light of the fact that he's already provided an awful to be released without restriction would he have the opportunity to address restrictions and then after the fact saying at the most he's going to say is it it's pretty unlikely let's let's really look at i believed to return to work within x number of pounds released return to work at it at higher levels or released return to work with specific restrictions that you could have specified dr hoffman market he said that the restriction was claims duties as a laborer he then later ran supplement the opinion and said claimant would be able to specifically unable to do kind of overhead activities above shoulder level and he can't deal with significant amounts of he was faking his condition certainly he had real shoulder surgery and certainly he had a real accident we're not disputing that the issue with regard to mr barr who means abilities or the issues with regard to the effort he put forth has to do with what is true of abilities in two thousand and four when he was seeking benefits when he was receiving benefits his exams were consistent the treating doctors the treating therapist noted in consisten who may on all issues and specifically found that the opinions of the physician retained by the c chicago dr walsh run persuasive as this court has repeatedly instructed as recently as this morning in order to overcome those findings the city has to show that they're against the manifest weight of evidence in other words that no rational trier of fact would agree with those findings of course a finding isn't against metaphysics sort of confused two different  the timeline is is in october first he starts condition as a watchman he was placed there through the seas father's own vocational program he's not paid a wage differential he's told if he wants to get away with differential  needs to to pursue measure with his attorney otherwise if he wants to get his full pay back he can get a full do you release and he can go back to work as a laborer he goes to dr rob dr rob says the thinks he might be able to go to work condition and whether it's going to stabilize not whether he can return to the position to which he was working at the time of the injury are you saying that if he is one as you can return to visit position he had before he was injured it gives me i'm saying if he cannot because he because he still cannot physically meet that requirement because he didn't live two hundred pounds continuously or because of the mitchell restriction for most who works which is that he could only work fifty pounds he goes to the comedy position that pays half his wages then yes he'd be entitled to maintenance to make up for the day what case law holds then the nasco case is that is the most similar situation where the employee was working for hour shifts instead of eight hour shifts and those  physical therapy and it was a maintenance benefit to make up for those wages so that then according to you he'd be entitled i mean as long as he can go back to lifting the hundred pounds which you maybe could never do that he should g there is that as long as i'm getting physical here very well i think it's as long as he's in any sort of either vocational rehabilitation program and i think the city's own book ational program to try and find him hasn't reached then and only comes that hands at one point well it would end when the employer reaches them in mind which in this case is in january two thousand and eight and the evidence then makes it that the wage differential is permanent for instance if mr brown who we had undergone his second surgery and was released without restrictions which isn't the case here and he was able to return to his old job then that wouldn't be situation read continue to get a wage differential benefits ordered that the wage differential star on october first two thousand and six and then making the commission modified it to reflect the maintenance work ok did i mean what was he paid who would he have been paid and the arbitrators work because he was  october first two thousand and six the commission modified to reflect that he wasn't a mine until january two thousand and eight and that the wage differential war itself started before him but he was intel to maintenance for that money  persuasive in any event dr wallace didn't truly pass on whether or not mr brahimi would have restrictions dr walsh's opinion was that there was no causal connection between a two thousand and seven surgery and the two thousand and three accident that's an argument that's been abandoned by the city of chicago at this point dr walsh's opinion was just that any restrictions she would have wouldn't be related to that two thousand and seven surgery and so there's been an attempt in in the prefix to suggest that seven it reflected that he couldn't work under palms continuously that was performed by the city chicago's own clinic they did not send that c e to their own physician that they retained to examine temporary partial disability wasn't part of the act back then but regardless only regardless of the the issue with regard to temporary partial disability you still have to demonstrate disability and counsel just said the the function capacity valuation that was completed and in january two thousand and seven determined that he cannot lift one hundred pounds continuously they have c e does not state that what council's referring to is affected they tested it very  able to carry one hundred pounds continuously and that's not what it says the conclusion in the f c even the conclusion by the doctors who looked at the f c e was that he was able to return to his regular job as a laborer for the water department and i course of a bit now of course the engineer didn't point to rush hour traffic on the bridge to test it he did it based on his experience as an engineer and his experience in terms of interpret a interpret in data and this case