seen mr jones and more importantly no one here is ever heard mr jones talk and i mention that because this is a twenty year old gentleman big gentleman six for almost six five who went to work for a period when he was twenty old he took a position as a route to livery salesman and was hired in texas he worked thirteen years before he was injured in two thousand and two for a period in that period he relocated from texas with the company to chicago and he was injured in february of two thousand and two in the chicago area prior to his injury he had already put in motion a process to relocate the arizona he had contact with the people down in period a requesting a transfer inquired regarding alternative deliberate positions and he subsequently did move to arizona approximately six weeks after his fall two thousand and two of the majority of his treatment was in arizona the surgery that he had with his physician was in arizona dr graves he had two courses of physical therapy in arizona and at the time that he was released to return back to work with century work restrictions he continued to reside in arizona it was at that point in june of two thousand and three that the respondent offered mr jones a position as an administrative assistant back in illinois no i've researched the issue and i don't see any case law that supports this gentleman requiring him to remove himself and his family from the state that he resides in and come back to illinois to take the position of him when it would respond to simply is just no support for that position beyond that if this court were to say it back is the requirement for the petitioner to come back to where he was injured to take the position of employment it's our position that that position that they offered him up would be destroyed of assistant was not suitable point wasn't suitable employment because this gentleman wasn't qualified for a clerical position he didn't have any computer skills didn't have any microsoft training and he excel spreadsheet training at the power point experience in fact he had very little experience with customers other than delivering the jugs of water for the residential homes petitioner's expert susan that and burke said there's no way this gentleman is qualified to work for that position he could work in some sort of customer service line of work might work as an order clarke but certainly he wouldn't be able to take this administrative position within period a and work in the office this is do we have conflicting evidence on the anthem whether or not the position was a legitimate off more credible that petitioners vocational expert what's glaring about no x testimony is she never met nor did she ever talk to gary jones and that's important because this gentleman is in articulate i point to page two fifty three of the record the testimony of susan mettenberger she did interview here jones she did meet with him she did discuss an interview his pratt his past job history and this is not a gentleman that was articulate by any means nor had he ever worked in an evidence of him bursars versus nowhere no no in fact out i'm willing to concede as unreasonable as it seems to me that he has to come back from arizona with his family and come back you know in order to this job of willing to concede that rigid nowhere was more persuasive to the dryer a fact that this job was something he was people who will do it should have taken that position let me for argument's sake acquiescent that the problem is even if he has to come back to illinois even if he has to take the administrative position there is absolutely no support in the record at this job pays nine hundred fifty dollars a week when we look at the evidence susan enberg petitioner's vocational expert this job for administrative position in arizona would pay about forty five a week in chicago it pays about five hundred thirty five dollars a week bridget know what she testifies that this isn't page media the transcript the median annual earnings per customer service rep were to the department of labor this is across the country is five hundred four dollars and sixty two cents so you say the forty nine five had to be a admits i have nothing to support that i don't have a document from the department of labor she's already told us it pays five hundred bucks an hour or five hundred four bucks a week nothing close to the nine hundred fifty dollars that they offer to match entry level position for a clear position for this gentleman he is not going to be jumping on board making a premium salary rate or premium hourly rates and this is so far from what the national averages are we can see clearly what the respondent was position suitable or unsuitable we can leave that to the commission in the panel but even if it was suitable he doesn't pay that rate and he at any of these figures had already five at five thirty an artificially high salary for someone who's never worked in that field twenty years he goes he's twenty years old he goes to work for period two deliveries prior to that he worked as a cook it worked as a waiter and he had worked  as a grocery store clerk this gentleman had never worked in the office with computers and spreadsheets never had any learn the skills to speak of period young that we have no evidence under any expert's testimony at nine fifty a week is a reasonable rate of compensation for someone with that experience entering into that clerical position so with respect to the wage differential i think the arbitrator in the commission missed it altogether it is against the manifest weight of the evidence  orthopedic physician for respond to testifying that this gentleman is a danger he doesn't have permanent sedentary work restrictions despite the obvious evidence from dr graves i think that undermines the arbitrators analysis regarding whether he's entitled to a full boat wage differential or something short of that let's remember something two of the commissioners did deny him or they gave him which differential calculated at forty one thousand were they didn't do nothing they're not exactly knew we had a vocational expert to testify in the case we've done evidence deposition before we went to trial so they asked for a section twelve medical exam but they come back with a medical exam and a vocational expert's report that's the prejudice that should have been done that's the prejudice here i think it's an abuse of discretion the last point i have is with regard to the maintenance benefits this gentleman is entitled the maintenance benefits notwithstanding the decision by the arbitrator that he elected in eighty one remedy  unanimous panel of commissioners and the circuit court the evidence in the record clearly establishes these rulings were in the man best way to be evidence and this court should likewise rule in my client's favor so over toward overturns lower expert and so what do you have to say about that first of all your honor i would i would say that that is not properly brought up because counsel did not raise that issue at the commission he failed to present a statement exceptions  bifurcated the trial was not completed opposing counsel he says that he had completed his trial however it was still going on and he could have countered with additional evidence as well there was like he said a long period of time between the initial hearing in february there's nothing in the record indicating that it was our job to check and then grades as as your honor this if this is ok why would you ever bother to prepare your case we'll wait and see with fischer's cases and get a continuance and prepare your case f later i understand your honor however we believe that we had to deal with what we had to deal with at the time i'm not clear why we didn't get a vocational expert prior to the february hearing date well they know section twelve i believe i mean correct as you are it's not required it seems like it's a regular practice that such contingencies are continued since are given and no it's within the discretion of the arbitrator to allow such continu of labor that indicate that this cap that was offered is being offered twice the value of the job so would you make that suit with the numbers that he's coming up with the first entry level position now mr jones had been with the company for thirteen years  he had certain skills that would make him successful in this position as respondents expert testified if i may refer to some of those skills that she that she stated  had specific skills regarding traffic and route and route purpose basher which is one of the requirements of transportation industry administrators not requirements but something that a transportation  would you be a unique experience being a driver for thirteen years or however many years he was in the chicago area that would allow him to specifically tailored your skills deposition and make him an attractive candidate for such a position expert was more credible and they went with her with her opinion  stated that petitioner could not succeed in the position that was offer not it's a fact that it was offered after the hearing had commenced whereas here we offered it in june of two thousand and three kirin did not begin until february two thousand and eight almost eight months later there's evidence in the riots case the opposite conclusion was apparent if there's no more questions than briefly conclude if you just respectfully add i request that the decision of arguments were denied to the petitioner when i listened to the last statement that counsel made regarding the commission's decision i think it's instructive as to how the commission you get it is here to make the argument that yuri's position that he took at cops electrons solely from service internet service and cable service g v in the store is the equivalent of this administrative position is absurd after computer and he didn't have to type it in have to have any accelerated spreadsheet or any microsoft knowledge to do the position he went into a sales position which was similar to his delivery route sales with piri a to believe that this gentleman can suddenly morph into an administrative assistant when going from a delivery man without any training without any assistance without any yet occasion is painfully absurd there is just no way you can put him in that position with out any job experience and the evidence supports that this is against the manifest weight of evidence the last twenty want to make is had they come to him with that offer and made that offer in the neighborhood of the national averages five hundred dollars a week five fifty maybe even six hundred dollars a week maybe that's reasonable in terms of that salary and maybe he could live with the decision of the commission that that was suitable work but it's twice what the national average is we can clearly see it's an artificially high salary to a gentleman without any experience to circumvent the obligation that they had on  differential he was making close to fifteen hundred dollars in the delivery doing the sales work all he did was try to push it over so they minimize the risks poser for his lifetime benefits and i think it's clear to the arbitrators i think it's good of the commission i don't know why they missed in both instances but i think it's apparently clear to the panel today and i ask that you reverse the decision of the commission and find this gentleman was entitled to a maximum wage