call it next case please and at that point time dr layoff found that the individual is no longer disable the fact is that in his language apparently said however reviewing the medical service he never examined initially he said i don't think he was ever this your honor having dealt with him at times he gets a little cynical and sarcastic especially when he finds fault with the saleh his allegation let's let's let's let's examine that at face value that dr land off decided it was never services surgeries or other means he is no longer disabled then of course that's why there's an annual review to ensure that the person continues but you can't simply say you can't base your decision that pension benefits should be halted because he's never sables begin with if if if if there's anything if there's any finale if there's  can stay payment we don't terminate the benefits but we can hold off payments until such time as he complies with the requirements under section four one twelve so all of the there's a difference between all the extent that it granted pension benefits it can say oops we've made a mistake we're going to take that back and that we're going to stop here we're going to terminate their pension benefits unless unless it  complies with the statute and that's the difference between the medical profession and the legal profession the legal profession we applied for that but watching the facts the way the medical profession only looked at what he thought were the medical facts and he concluded he issued a medical conclusion that it doesn't that that doesn't bind anyone and it doesn't comply necessarily comply with off if the us has that you must make a showing that the individual is no longer disabled i don't know that that within that showing it includes it showing that he was never disabled to begin where you're out of the untenable right it's not that in the event somebody receives a disability pension it's position we started the position that he's receiving pension benefits now and now we have to show that he's no longer i think but the point is your honor in peacetime to set it at the time of the jail the nation at the time of actually have a strong hand because the detroit it doesn't i know her and to the extent that it was eight it's over with the question becomes hot how many other cases are we going to examine say you know what the pension board made the mistake from the get go because they didn't review the medical evidence properly and now we have this this doctor who says he was never really stable your honor if i could back a promoter the three evidence that there is no disability and how do you do then you know for an expert's opinion to be believed it has to have a proper basis where he says basis when he doesn't do it and examination of plate shouldn't extension inversion version in all the other tests that are needed and let me pick you back on that you just indicated that it was within the board that the work to all halt pension benefits until the proper examinations were period of time we have the public out there yelling and screaming complaining about pensions yet here clearly we have an individual that's not entitled to the benefits that we continue to pay because of the fact that we're saying we did the preview original board and there's a different you know you're not going to need that much time and i'm not i'm tempted to sit down good morning i may please the core oh my name is thomas dude i represent the plaintiff in this case obviously obligation to prove that he was entitled to benefits under four dash one ten we did that in the year two thousand and two and it was not the superficial examination it was a five day and for dash one twelve of the pension code expressly says how this any will exam should be handled and the counsel it didn't really use the exact language says quote all upon satisfactory proof to the board that a spider fighter on the disability pension has recovered from disability the board shall terminate the disability pension the burden is to prove that the pensioner has recovered there is no continuing outlook ation on the part of the pensioner to prove that he remains disable the burden is that he has come up and there's no dr referred my client to dr beatty who has treated him continuously from two thousand and one through the date of the hearing he testified through evidence deposition at this hearing and his testimony was dead that this gentleman not only remains to say and i'm somewhat concerned because i agree with counsel there's i do a lot of these and i do a lot with the firefighters union and i'm aware of the public's concern about  improve mr hoffman's conditioning and get him back to work every time he reached the point he was going to make the decision it turned out that everything that any twisting your brain would would create pain in a little bag radiating into the groin which he testified was reproducible and i got to go over the years and in his a pen that was a jack of evidence because the the pain complaints and the place of pain thing he said in my opinion if this gentleman were to attempt to return to work he would present eight danger not only to himself but his coworkers because if he has these pains radiating down his leg while he's doing depositions those are not words that they frequently use but he was a bag that this gentleman is condition is such that he presents a danger to the community of these two it's clear soft tissue injuries now also right now and if it happens and if there are some if there if there is some suggestion that his pain is not legitimate they can do with what they did and rows and rows of the case where the reisa is that the condition had occurred there were videotapes of the plaintiff being a rodeo clown and lifting heavy fifty five gallon drops which was not consistent with this low back complaints this gentleman released on employ is only source of income was his disability benefit he's single he's never been married he lives alone takes care of his mother there's ample opportunity to to follow him and film he's a legitimate it's a legitimate case and the courts read my brief i do think i've accurately stated the long the first decisions fine that's it and from that point on there needs to be evidence of improvement and i'm glad that counsel brought up the threat iraq case and i don't i really don't understand  understand why pension courts don't do this well i don't understand why pension boards don't pick a doctor to do these annual exams so that that doctor can trace the changes in in the client over a period of years and travel merrill's a metal case and the board sent this man to a psychiatrist or a psychologist for any will examinations and first three examination she stated that he was suffering from a mental disability and could no longer work then she testified he soon proved and she examination my final question was dr basically your opinion is this guy was never to say yeah that's my opinion well you see here's the problem in life you know i've been through this for over fifty years i know p didn't find somebody disabled and i never saw a case with dr land off ever found somebody to say so they out with their they are who they are the safety of the firefighters for the members present members are firefighters to whom are disabled they're willing to take that risk they don't believe that this would incur or create a dangerous situation they found that basically someone who was not