the majority of manifest weight cases that appear before this court i would attest that this one does meet that standard if one looks at the facts that are in the record and those facts were the only one finding that th and limitations putting a twenty lb lifting restriction and no forceful use of her thumbs after each of her surgeries the employer did provide her like you do work in july of two of different jobs in july of two thousand and five employer provided for a job in the mailroom there's no dispute there's no allegation that claimant performed this job for the remainder of july of two thousand that she testified she felt she was terminated them properly the key fact in this case is that after i told her twelfth two thousand and five this employer never offered her any work there is examination they started using the word laid off his petitioner who was the only witness to testify in this regard never indicated that she was laid off she was fired along i told her twelve two thousand five  and so your honor just like maybe a benefit of your employment if you were terminated from your job that benefits no longer be available to you so there's no evidence in the record that the bumping procedure was available to her after october twelfth two thousand and five after she was fired it visually your honor even if it was available to her which there is no evidence that there is and i'm not conceding that point i want to make that very clear even if there was such evidence that she still had some union rights to based on her seniority to reapply or get jobs there that there was any job available subsequent to that october twelfth two thousand and five that she could perform that were worth in her restrictions or limitations i agree that for three to half years she was undergoing her treatment of until october twelfth two thousand five hundred people did provide her light duty work that was within a restrictions that she was able to perform there were a couple jobs here and there she had some medical issue or issues with and she had difficulties with but that last job we should perform for almost three months there is no evidence that she ever had any issues with that she never talked to her doctor about that she never complained about that there's no evidence of that but if the file for union pension benefits and social security benefits want to do that your honor she should apply for her pension in december of two thousand and five or two months after she was fired prior to that she applied for unemployment benefits this goes exactly contrary to the commission's finding that bed i think the quote from the commission's order is that on october twelfth two thousand and five this claimant opted out of the labor market she didn't opting out and we will make it sound voluntary she she was fired that day that is the evidence in the record where you say she was fired didn't petition or before she was caught on fire specific claim of physical inability to return to the work duties that were provided to her in government well your honor yes earlier in the summer of two thousand and five yes she had some difficulty with the fork lift driver job that she was being trained for she didn't make it through training so that was one job they need available to her she cheat she claimed she couldn't perform but but after that your honor subsequent to that in july two thousand and five for the last two and a half months she worked there she performed the job without complaint without any allegation that she couldn't perform the record based on this kind it's a cross examination testimony that other workers at some point prior to april of zero six were laid off as part of an economic layoff and then april or may of zero six zero their workers were th which obviously implies that employer called them back to work now him apparently having more work available but let's again i need to emphasize to this court that at no point subsequent to the october twel that this petitioner could perform additionally even if there was a job available there's no there's no evidence that any such job was ever offered to her best to keep those they terminated her it's my position that they now three and a half years and provided his lady like team work but they chose not to affected that day my position under the act is that they be now have an obligation to write a book ational rehabilitation benefits which were demanded and requested commission didn't take issue with the quality of her job search additionally we had a vocational counselor himself which is the only one involved in the case offering to opinion that no stable labor market exists for this petitioner so unlike th skills education and her physical limitations now employer the commission relied on facts that are simply not on the record in coming to the conclusion that this petitioner somehow bioterror the opted out of the labor market  the other issues i raise in my brief essentially fall hand in hand with the commission's findings based upon the october twelfth two thousand and five terminations which they phrased  of the labor market it's clear that this petitioner was entitle to vocational rehabilitation benefits including the payment of maintenance benefits while she conducted her diligence of self directed job search and also given that employer provided no written explanation for the denial of benefits as is required by the rules of the workers compensation commission i believe penalties were warranted here  that there's nothing in the record that she did that and in fact i'll bet that she never asked the employer for work at it any time after she was fired on october twelfth two thousand and five and  i would argue that it is a logical for one after being fired from a job to return to that job and ask for work well we did she have any bird here at all to prove that she can or cannot work oh absolutely your honor and i think she's met that because she we have the initial burden to show that she says paperwork injury which prevents her from doing her given job which we i believe we've done there's no medical there's no medical dispute in this case and she worked for three and a half years of  that that is there's no requirement that she do that that's not a reasonable action for one for one two one two one to take and lastly there's new evidence in the record that was somebody had such a job available a ccommodating appropriate job available for the following her october twelfth two thousand and five firing decision the petitioner marry this cause over a period of years two thousand and two to two thousand and five had three total weeks of lost time with a response location there was no testimony of those work activities  those years had and he was any make work or temporary assignment or something that did fit within a stable job market at the close of her employment with the respondent after dr venter had found that she was at knx with medical  proven and april of two thousand and five he continued to make some complaints she was trained for a forklift jab due to economic changes at the respondents location with the closure of the motor department  general layoffs at the plant petitioner testified that she had been laid off and other people were laid off and about at or about the same time she had previously bumped other employees from the packaging department and that was again due to economic conditions was bought by another employee with and she apted not to pursue that what can she do that after she's laid off she indicated that the union had contacted i want to k should and she adapted not to call them back and she believed it was the union's obligation to contact her are not product ad tacked to union duty to take some steps to return to work the first place she could have done that was when she was trained for the additional jab the doctor vendor did not preclude that she could do in july of two thousand and five that led to were moved to the mailroom department they had met that she worked consistently for three months in the mailroom department without any indication that that was a make work jab or not some jab that fit within the regular with within the regular economy this petition has some element from prescriptions it does to a commission review those prescriptions and actually modified the decision of the average player increasing the award of benefits there is nothing inherited says the industrial commission did not have a valid basis to review and evaluate the evidence they specifically limitations but there is no evidence in this record that subsequent to her firing on october twelfth two thousand and five that any of those jobs are available to this petition have evidence of a reasonably diligent job search and we have vocational evidence supporting that there is no stable even market for this petition or there it is there is no vocational evidence for the contrary the burden shifts to everybody from in two thousand and six that we laid off for economic reasons in two thousand and five and that's why we laid off this this petitioner and had she not retired she would have had these options available to her she could work in the mailroom