important one though the ultimate underlying issue is whether or not the decision entered by the workers compensation mission was against the manifest with the evidence the case is obviously tried in against so i don't i don't know that it was against those five he said that he would not have necessarily done them but the commission decision ultimately said that those five surgeries necessary so i think the commission to fed into consideration and they said listen these surgeries are  necessary and they were paid for by the response to the current issue is what is his condition now the time period and after those five surgeries the petitioner was able to do things like water skiing and i know why not able to water ski i can't pull done within six months prior to that examination those all came into evidence were taking into consideration by the commission where in the commission said this gentleman is obviously been very active he can do things like write in a he can water ski which takes strength to do he can clearly work and do things says dr layman says have told me we're prescription so it was within the parameters of the commission in the commission alone to look at the facts and say and looked at that actual surgical photographs and reviewed all of them and said that the findings on searchable examination were not that great and he was a qualified expert to make those decisions in the commission took that into consideration was that employers were th well i mean whenever you hear about somebody who's doing activities such as water skiing it makes you wonder what they're doing and whether or not those activities exceed the restrictions that were put in place by dr emanuel at that point time it think it's reasonable prudent for them for you to say in this  the activities which is what the company did here is interviews and the commission looked at it and said yeah you're right this gentleman can do these activities he can clearly work full duty and he's hosting duties it greatly exceeds the but on physical examination he has a very specific type of person this it only comes about with hyper repetitive motion in stressors on the shoulder something that you see typically with swimmers own mind doesn't mean that the commission can assert that it is in the commission can't rely upon that which they hear and again to find it doctors opinions against a manifest with the evidence is not the proper legal argument the argument is whether or not the decision of the vision is against them in this way that it's whether or not the commission had reasonable facts to base their opinions upon or they were their decision upon in this case like i said unless you completely discredit dr layman and say he's not all i can make those opinions i don't know how you make that  trial which was one of the reasons why i asked to have this sent back to circuit court to have for the determination to have a circuit court review the evidence and all that evidence including all the exhibits presented in testimony and a trial for all the exhibits to that that the restrictions that were in place met his job description the same job he's doing before correct because there was a change in jobs and that's in the testimony joel this is a supervisor came in and testified and said listen this job was a heavier job description but we brought in a live with the really heavy lifting requirements in a change to look your partners for the job therefore he would have been a match and had he not sold neshoba industries and heavy not been found guilty and charged one supervisor and dr wayne and stating yes his job is similar i'm sorry this job could have been performed with prescriptions in place by dr emanuel with the changes made with the looting restrictions lessened and also secondly that he was also looking for jobs as a means for cannick that were similar to those jobs that he was performing while he was working with task  are there any other questions thank you thank you he also proved an impairment of early so earnings so he met the two tasks to show that he should be getting an award under eighty one when you read the arbitrator's decision and the commission affirmed without discussion  it's not exactly clear what specifically they are relying upon to find he was not a candidate for a coupon there's a few phone notes in there and i've addressed those in my that in fact three years after dr emmanuel's and i my release and four months before were scheduled to go to trial they just wanted to get an update on whether or not dr emanuel's restrictions were still valid and therefore they sent him to a doctor of the layman for that opinion they are her and maybe there are some activities that petition was doing so let's just get an update right before trial and see how those restrictions are of course and could send back to a manual or prior doctor so will the law get dr laman the interesting part i will say about that is if that's what they were really intending to do why didn't they sent her to  coming in with the notion of hey listen a lot of time some time has gone by and and we've gone through a long period of procreational rehab which incidentally the respondent provided that vocational rehab right up until the army at the time i was thinking while i said it was good and i want to bring up a couple of points number one is i want to bring up this is that when we talk about evaluating the commission as to whether or not they could adopt a doc one doctor's opinion over another doctor's opinion we were on we have several we've got five surgeries in two separate doctors opinions that go against dr layman and the commission no fewer than three or maybe even four times indicated that dr layman's opinions were on rebuttal and i will simply say is i don't view rebuttal in a linear chronological fashion meeting dr layman was the first one to get a crack at things here and therefore it's not again the important conclusion he drew from frankly he didn't disagree with hardly anything that any of the other doctors sad accept this full duty release and again there's no functional capacity about you ation or dr layman who are relied upon  awarded the maintenance that had been terminated because of the conclusion you know and also the the medical bill he decided all the issues in his final order and so in this case there's no remapped i don't think that this would be respondents exhibit eight have the old job description and the new job description and they were both rated as abbey so again the notion that the petitioner could go back to the is  patently false and that's one of the big problems with what laymen said i mean it there's just no getting around that petitioner in this case so there are a lot of evidentiary things that could have been done and i think that that's kind of all speculative the only issue is what evidence did the commission have to rely upon with their decision or the factual findings against manifest w