however what i see decisions from the industrial mission i don't see them reason expressed in the worker's compensation act why any commission could deny eighty one award after there's a finding that both problems of an eighty one award exist in the evidence i find nothing in is the commission is getting subjective about these things they become very very critical about jazz searches there was a lot of criticism of my point in this case there's criticism like mine and some other cases there is a lot of  more criticism of the letter in the letter case that you decided exactly the same way and sent it back with exactly the same order one of the only reasons something and i don't understand how you could come to the conclusion you came and came to i'm reading you word for word from what we wrote yet we should be clear that we are not instructing the commission on the conclusions it should reach on remained only that it should decide the issue in necessary and hopefully would say it's not necessary for her betty so the other cases where people sit in limbo in this vocational rehabilitation have searches doesn't following this issue in this particular case and making that letter decision but you may see these things coming back a little less we can get some clear clarification and again i'm going to repeat i know of nothing nothing in the law or the stat couldn't make a determination as to whether he was capable of returning to his normal occupation or new alternative what you see in true earning capacity would be what do we do with it what therefore the commission does not know petitioners of actual physical capabilities or he was earning potential even if the commissioner of septa cursory labor markets or be provided by the respondent regime earning potential even serve a minimum wage twenty dollars an hour is too great to assess a precise and appropriate week differential therefore the commission declines to word the wage differential what they're saying is they didn't have enough information to insufficient information to determine what is your earning capacity was and therefore they couldn't give in which differential and yet the record we were supplied with in this case does not contain any transcripts of the proceedings before the original arbitrator it doesn't contain anything from the original arbitration you gave us are nothing warm then the original arbitrator's decision the original commission's decision and the new decision and we don't have the trillion scripts of the original arbitration proceed never game to us not only are we supposed to do it i can't explain it well but  one final record i don't have any recollection of not having a record commission relied upon in determining the claimants requests for a waste of foreign to work nothing absolutely nothing a kid can issue a question and i don't know if there was no further proceedings before the commission so i believe that you have a thing you need in order to make this decision now when they turn around said we reviewed his testimony and this is what we find that it doesn't show so we've got  now be turned around and said we can't even sufficiently prove his journey capacity and therefore we can't grant him a wage differential on review the question is d d e sufficiently or didn't t and the problem we have is we don't have his testimony we don't know what the reader did and so now what do we do other than fall behind the old rule that we presume with their decision is eighty the war i think in another place they say must  wage differential appears in the record but whether mr lovato heads sufficiently proving an actual entitlement to wait here for the chills a different matter altogether and that's why this courtroom antics of the commission so that it could decide that factual question  commission but it is kind of an interesting abby and then i come down here to the clerk's office and i never take the record out of here to the little table was there and i go through it and i put in all of the r as simply a question of law you told the appellate the commission to do something i say they didn't do it i said a lot of doesn't give them a real legitimate reason for saying what they said so i view them totally as a question of what counsel raised he claims that there's a reason for turning it down because the evidence he put in is it gives