please be seated thank you nineteenth of the tenth he filed his decision on october twenty second of two thousand and ten ordering thirteen thousand one hundred five and sixty one cents in medical thirty nine and six seventh's weeks of maintenance and a wage differential benefit commencing on august twentieth of two thousand and ten in the response to file the review and the commission after oral argument modified the other shooters decision to reduce the have a reduce be a medical award by a little over a simple and whether the commission decision to vacate we have recruiters awarded maintenance and weeks difference of benefits is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence we submit that it was going to give you a very brief statement of facts when i was preparing my got injured january seventeenth two thousand and five undisputed i missed a step an employee rise keep on heavily on her left ankle started and extensive course of treatment that started out conservative alternately ended up with two surgeries to her left ankle bone graft in a bone stimulator and released with permanent restrictions should i count my might count twelve doctors involved in this case including examiners five of whom responded examiners one of those responding to them restored holmes who is one of the top podiatrist in the state became her treated or one of her treaters but she had little critters but it was a dr holmes who did the surgery on her l standard of review here is one of the commission decision vacating editors a word of meaning and says contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and we contend that it was for the following reasons and opposite a conclusion is clearly apparent this is conclusion was supported by every doctor in this case except dr mark levin hired defense examiner and that was on his second bite at the apple and it was based upon the videotapes symptoms of that i can understand but i don't think that they took into account the extremely heavy pain medications that she was on also the videotape was ch context of this video what else was going on at the time and i think it was some indication that maybe she was taking powerful pain medication at the time so maybe it would have allowed her to do these things that sort of thing did that sort of testimony come out at arbitration i mean did you attempt to fill in the blanks here saying that there are blinds here because it's heavily you say heavily edited did you try to flush out what else was going on during the period of time that the video was taken i believe we did it's been quite some time but i do recall her testifying to the heavy medications that she was on and also the fact that she had to take frequent rest breaks i mean that's how you combat surveillance that is that you have that you can't have a comparable video showing the other twenty two hours of the day being normal or showing what her opportunity to do that and that's something that that would have been evidence before the arbitrator of the arbitrator to consider right and i believe that's what every hundred decided that the way he did ok in the evidence then was in the record for the outweighed by the contrary evidence your honor i certainly understand your point but dr levin extrapolated from his viewing of the videotape and he speculated and so many treating doctors who obviously believe her we don't look at quantity of evidence we look at quality of evidence and i just don't feel that the evidence that the commission relied on is quality evidence i think at the videos had to pick that day in the life of the petitioner the one thing even if it had been two constant hours of activity following the petitioner i think that would have been relevant i don't think cherry picking little snippets of her life wife as i recall your honor and that's been a while since i read in the transcript but i recall that just her testifying to the issues that she was experiencing we should also remember that her  surveillance performed on july tenth and eleventh and september eighteenth one thousand to two thousand and nine was inflammatory and prejudicial in support of this allegation he said it paled ready versus the industrial commission however i would argue that this case is not on point in fact opponent can see this in his own brief on page eighteen that he's not arguing the loss of the right of a bottle as was the case in pale lady here the petitioner had the opportunity to view the surveillance tape prior to trial she was asked about  trial on direct examination if you look at pages thirty nine and forty in the trial transcript you'll see that fisher testified very briefly about how some of the surveillance was shot through a window and she claimed it was taken of her maid mopping instead of her doing any of the the rest of the surveillance clearly shows the petitioner engaging in quite a few different activities including driving walking and riding her bicycle that was loaded with equipment to the beach one of the other arguments my opponent  makes is that the surveillance video was just a snapshot in time and that she was on heavy pain medication which allowed her to perform these tasks i would argue that the heavy pain medication argument cuts both ways if you look at the surveillance video especially the video of the petitioner riding her bike to the beach to support the video at trial and that it was it was inaccurate or inauthentic however this is no objection that is exactly was going to say or are furthermore the commission didn't rely solely upon surveillance he relied on the petitioner statements he relied on the medical records and his physical examination in addition to the surveillance video during the examination the petitioner made some statements that were contrary to what he viewed in the surveillance video for instance if helen stated that her ankle pain was constantly at a level of seven to eight out of ten which is a high level if this statement were actually true then such the high level pain would be viewed constantly i need during all aspects complaints were out of proportion to any objective findings including the survey of the surveillance video hilton opined that she was at maximum medical improvement in addition to dr levin's findings the commission relied upon the f c e reports and i believe all three f c reports some degree are in favor of the employer in this matter the december thirteenth two thousand and seven f c e shows near full but not full effort of the petitioner performed within the light category and that her job assessed by that evaluator was also in the light category the march twenty ninth two thousand and ten f c e shows a valid effort shows that she performed in the medium category and this evaluator found her job to be in the medium category and finally with the appellee the petitioner felt that that  made that he didn't think she could return to her former job because of her own subjective complaints and supplementing pain behavior but once again based on other sources of evidence the record shows that the petitioner likely has engaged based upon the above the commission relied upon the substance of evidence and the file and the record in order to come to its conclusion and make a decision that the petitioner was not entitled to a wage differential and vacated the main aspect of benefits respondent based upon these