is that they claim to multiple reasons why they found that he was not motivated in his vocational counseling and that's why they are career found that they should not reinstate first was this the arbitrator flowing back but house or minutes felt that he should shave his beard and get a new clothes ok my client refused to shave his beard which i don't think that should be any issue or schedule appointments so is there a catholic well that's not completely accurate what happened was is that he when he went to these appointments he did only missed one and he claims he did not get a letter from mr minaj for that appointment and what that march eighth two thousand and thirteen with the initial visit he went and they were able to do an initial assessment the next point was the one thousand he showed for that appointment and they also went over how to develop a resume and go over job lea on march first it was can't what happened they're supposed to be the librarian this is one of the county misses but actually they rescheduled and met at the attorney's office within a day or two after that the third or the fourth appointment was seven he did show for that but there was an issue of going to coles to get new clothes and they had a confusion on which polls to go to war with the address was for polls like i had never went on and it's important to note that the counselor missed one of the appointments as well and this is the only no show us five three thirteen which was the only miss that he had and that was in the petition testified he didn't get the letter for that appointment this is what i think is important  i feel this is that there was a can there was confusion and this is the point is that my client had a doctor's appointment when seen his doctor said he was having pain ok he then reports the vote counts i'm having and i don't think i counseling anymore because his doctor has him off and so it happens immediately both made this claim and stopped both counseling was stopped without any investigation into what had happened i client had absolutely no money went to these meetings we discussed and then once they stop paying him he had no way to get to anywhere he had no gas money no ability to do that the only time he was able to finally start a job search when he was it was financial vi commission explicitly time minutes to be credible they have some credibility problems with your claim so what are we supposed to do with the half of the point and here's i find and i hope you do find this tremendous credible because in cross examination he did explain one important point and that was he was found in cooperated of underwriting examination and then i asked him on cross examination in the deposition number one was the uncooperative dismissed said no he wasn't in uncooperative the issue was is this medical problem caused a situation where he could not proceed with bowe so then because he could proceed he just could not go any further so his definition of own cooperate of i don't think is the same as it sounds on the record when he explained it on cross examination number two he felt that mr sutton my client was being cooperated of in both i think that's very important while he was invoked there is the argument job i think that's very important too and that was on cross examination and he testified to that in a deposition and that's in the record as well and so i think this are minute i think because of the confusion with the calls to the doctor there was a problem there they support the claim well i think that one thing from reading the arbitrator's decision the commission decision they never quoted any of those statements or even refer to any of those statements on cross examination so i'm not sure exactly why they did not do that and i've argued all along that they should have and i think this one of the most important key points in this case is that if you read cross examination mr menage is actually very favorable to my client on cross examination the only negative statement that he said we could overturn that i thought ability right up yes i think there's not enough facts to file my client not credible and actually if we just go through the totality of the record i think all the issues that they had with my client are one i think using dr or mr manages is a negative and say the doctor does not on the record once and i think that's an error by itself and then secondly all the issues that they had with him back the manager said that he was cooperative both so all these missed appointments when we go through the it also they didn't even start the job search part of his bow and as soon as he became financially viable he did start a job search on his own to the best his ability i think should be conveyed thank you thank you coun four that the question starts out winces you're not saying he was uncooperative you're saying that there was a medical issue that arose karate and the doctor says and i think this is a big of us here the doctor says quote that's what he reported to me yes we never finished never ironed out any other obstacles continuing issues on disability dressing appropriately resume and job applications there's one hundred one things that we never really got into in terms of actual gun placement when we couple that ambiguity clothing which is the coles incident they're referring to and the doctor says these would be reasons barriers significant barriers to obtaining employment yes now can the commission look at that evidence and say is that evidence of  cooperate or evidence of a lack of a significant effort to pursue vigorously a vocational rehab program yes it can and that's in fact what it did except we have even more here we talk about credibility council was asked a question by the by the court specifically how many appointments were mess and he said well there was one for sure but that he missed one fifty was he misunderstood were being i think that tells us one thing about this case skews for everything he had an excuse for why i missed my appointments why i couldn't go to coles why i could shave my beard why i couldn't apply online why i had a six month  time he was asked an important question to explain something he was a basis or he had an excuse the arbitrator sitting there has easy duty of drawing the credibility assessment based on what he sees from the witness he did so here  that the mission here found this individual not credible they looked at the fact that he missed appointments that he was refusing to modify as the parents would make efforts to improve himself that he had a six month gap i'm where he didn't do anything and couldn't is it is it is it a logical conclusion to say maybe this guy appeared for these other guys in the six months is this time to be some admitted this list and wasn't presenting himself in the best light yes sure that's possible so could the dillard he was going to blue collar jobs and that's how we dress and he stated and trial that you would and did dress appropriately and would dress openly for these interviews and again i think if we would just if you just