the task is whether there is actual sufficient evidence in the background to support the commission's findings now whether this court would come to the opposite conclusion so i'd like to turn to their decision which is a loss of trade trade at a fifty couldn't access that one percent of the labor market she just comes to this conclusion that he's a one million totally disabled that there's no stable labor market and they want satisfied with the steps that she took to come to that conclusion she motive to go back to work she was already on social security disability at this time she also addresses that she has mechanical carpentry and electrical skills when she's in it but that doesn't address any of misinformation or incorrect information you know what what they're concerned about is how she arrived at her conclusion and the fact that that was not persuasive mr think he has restrictions on his ability to stand and lifting approximately ten to fifteen pounds but this isn't someone who's complying for a wheelchair he can set it in fact we accommodated that temporary like you and i will concede that for about three months when he could drive a truck and file recognize in this case that the commission's factual determination used an improper legal standard it's one thing for the commission to state this is what the legal standard is they didn't actually apply it they didn't actually weigh the factors of age education training skills experience and condition they looked at three things in discounting the evidence in this case provided by the expert rehabilitation counselor they looked at whether the interview was in person or telephonic which i am at a loss to understand as to how that impacts the factors at issue that need to be evaluated physical examination i'm sorry he was going to do a physical exam but she was not and this notion that his pain behaviors would have somehow dramatically changed the opinion as to his employer ability i just can't even wrap my mind around if you was in pain i'm assuming that would have further impaired his ability to find employment and if you wasn't in pain it still doesn't change the facts that we have to look at his age education training and experience so i have no understanding of why this is a factor that the commission is so reliant upon when addressing this homeless opinion we do telephonic evidence before the commission on a regular basis whether it's telephonic depositions or it's not the st time that we've presented telephonic  evidence the nd point the commissioner references in determining whether or not mr thomas opinion was persuasive is that he thirteen dollars an hour for the respondent employer again i can understand where under the factors w wage earning was for the employer effects his age education training and experience such that he is employer will because he once earned thirteen dollars an hour in that regard it's opportunity i mean i have no idea what it's saying is that saying that it was a low wage job you can go find another low wage or is it saying he could he could make good money obviously i am i couldn't say because again there's no contrary evidence  commission arbitrarily rejected miss home as opinion because she didn't do it in person interview or because she earns thirteen dollars an hour i'm not saying the past to be an delineation of a specific no but i think they have to perform an analysis of those factors miso mike did perform an analysis of this factors i take great offense to the argument that somehow she didn't evaluate these things in her factual analysis and that's why we should disregard her opinion i mean she lays it out in the evidence your honour's where she goes through why he doesn't have access to the one percent of the labor market that is unskilled sudden terry one of those that she  about how he has no computer skills she talks about his age ok he's fifty five years old this person of his advanced age that's going to significant excuse me i didn't make it up the federal government says it so if this significant lee effects a person's ability to find work ok so he's already trying to access only one percent of the labor market he's inhibited by his age she talks about how he has no history of skill work he has no computer training but most importantly near this gentleman he has a grade school diploma he only completed the th grade so she identifies the barriers that are keeping him from stable labor market met the preponderance of the evidence standard in the commission should have shifted that burden of production to the employer to prove that there was a stable labor market to prove otherwise and i'm not saying that the always has to be a contrary vocational asked her opinion ok you when you look at it for example that my opponent cites two there was not a contrary vocational expert opinion but there was other evidence in the record that was able to contradict that opinion such that the employer in that case had made an offer to accommodate the light to the restriction so there was contrary evidence to hang your hat on their win against the vocational expert that plaintiff and we don't have anything anything like that in in the record here to show conflicting evidence on the factors that he was able to access that one percent of the labor market similarly in the professional transportation case cited in my brief this court set aside a commission award of i'd like total where the claimant didn't enter a vocational report and the employer did and this court found that the commission award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because there was not a vocational opinion to plaintiff's theory that he was an odd lot perm total so having this locational evidence to put forward these theories this important we can't just argue them as attorneys there has to be evidence in the record to support that this gentleman was employed paul and that burden was not shifted to the employer to show that he did in fact have access to that stable labor market correct the circuit court was cracked and in reversing the commission's decision the factors were not properly applied there was no contrary evidence i don't know how we could say in this case that a clear and convincing  conclusion isn't right only apparent because there's no evidence to support that just because an in person interview wasn't done and somebody or thirteen dollars an hour that they're obviously employable and that one per and i think when the commission analyzes those facts they have to apply be appropriate legal standard they have to evaluate the factors that affect an individual's employ ability in the situation and the commission decision is clear that they did to check the weather and send an e mail so this is just another inconsistency that the commission drew i'm that he obviously knows how to use such a lab to check the weather or the type to send an email and yet she concludes you knows nothing about the computer so i'm not saying that he has this great knowledge about a computer but it's just once again one of these inconsistency is that they found was not persuasive i'd also like to address the argument the committee did not analyze every fact on and specifically cite to the english case and in that case the court stated that it is presumed that the commission concerned is all competent and proper evidence and the failure of them to explicitly lay out each