that the medical evidence can only support the conclusion that at a minimum mr i'm think not returned to his prior employment due to the permanent work restrictions that you requires in order to function at work doctors the first three occasions were on september twenty seventh two thousand and six may seventh two thousand and eight and january twenty first two thousand and nine on all three of those occasions dr cobol sk fast forward to the last two times that doctor calls keep examined the like your honour's i became part of this case after the trial and after all the field so i am limited to the record so in reviewing this record reviewing dr calls his opinions beginning with the september twenty third two thousand and nine opinion i noticed a definite shift in his tone and his opinions towards the petitioner it definitely was a shift and suddenly he has become suspicious of the fact that the show has not gotten better that in in all of this time since his initial injury in june of two thousand and six to september of two thousand and nine he has consistently reported the same symptoms the same pattern of symptoms the same description of where it is hurting him and this varying levels but with bends with also with consistency of pain yet suddenly dr is seems to be irritated that fisher has not gotten better in fact the petitioner states that when undergoing this work hard meeting his pain symptoms increase and that the pain in his  reported a fairly consistently to all of the physicians that he treated with throughout this process is there another issue moving here and like it is if we found out that there's a reading list it appears the commission determine the complaint cl h these two reports with dr quality dr kovalchuk he had issues with patients credibility with the symptomatology for a couple reasons and the reason my argument here is that his issues with the credibility of the patients are not supported by the medical evidence specifically we start with the fact that on september twenty third two thousand and nine dr cobol's stated that he doesn't this is the first time skee states that while i want to have a functional capacity sam perform i want to know what his actual work capabilities are isis fact that this at c e is going to show the symptom want an independent the syllabi to do another i see well first of all that's not true that same is not true doctor you will be a primary care physician referred the petitioner to for the subsidy but that's neither here nor there then we go to the second to see are what i what i reiterated was the radiologists report of the diffuse just faults as it's my recollection the doctor you will simply read the radiologist report and took at the radiologist said his interpretation of the report accor do some of the medium demand work but not all and he definitely did not meet the medium demand plus category now they sayd that dr fauci found problems with this report believe that that to be a self limiting behavior essentially doctor could all ski also stated that petitioner had core psycho social dynamics and therefore you know he's not putting forth the full effort here's will read come in to have a problem the because you can't read he has a second gravely reading capability in the first grade writing to the building examiner had to read to him these questionnaires and then we have to make the assumption that only that are these responses to these questionnaires i mean there was some question there about the liability but it also could be explained by the fact that he's had this injury for so long so and it's important to note that it no other time during all of the seven years his age his education and his transferable skills etc he is able to compete into a well known labor market that that is a well established player labor market essentially deficient underwent application on his own according to mr straighter and in his history of work he's only ever worked as a laborer in the medium to heavy to exceedingly heavy work category so it was  function of this court all known is well established in order for the previous rulings to be overturned you must find they are against a man with evidence and this is an recently noted that can enable this very year in the case of johnson versus seen and the doctor kit is able to interpret those he's a medical expert he can interpret those findings in light of what he saw in the physical examination which each time showed note neurologic abnormality there was never any recommendation in this the commission have some credibility problem fellas with him if they did and that came from testimony regarding his activities outside of the medical arena first of all there was the one with him power wash was able to view a d v d showing the power washing on occasions man who says back was in such pain it gave ratings of six to seven out of ten each time you saw a doctor you'll without using a power washer in a want washing cabals who said he in fact has done hard washing sell said that if a man had the level of symptoms he was complaining of that would not be possible to not be able to do that in the way it was shown on the film was moving cross examination of him yes but when he did several prizes during those years and he had done twenty two events in july of twenty left not too long after he had seen doctor you kitchener's own presentation to his doctors was not completely forthright about his capacity as abilities and therefore that raises questions about how reliable anything is from a functional the past which the significance of it needs to be interpreted by  so all of that goes together to question the petitioners credibility with regard to the patient i think the commission picked up on that which is also why they discounted mr schrader's opinions b medical evidence generated subsequent to that date to dr kovalchuk the records or the records up through august the twenty thirteen which is where the record ends when we tried to he didn't see the surveillance films obviously he took all the complaints of face and relied upon those exaggerated claims and as i've just discussed to share subjective complaints are certainly questionable in light of his activities with power washing and the mud run  during his deposition that if the petitioner was presenting his symptoms honestly to the doctors he would have been unable to perform the task of our question those are so interested with the subject line and his presentation with regard to proving permanent total disability under the law theory which is not in the statute but is developed in case law there are two aspects petitioner first much show a diligent but unsuccessful attempt fine work and there's no evidence of that in the record that he made a deliberate attempt he testified arbitration and he tried it on things they didn't he didn't feel good and didn't do much more but there's no evidence as to what do you try to get the applied for a job what types of jobs you applied for any number of things there's nothing in there that supports killing job search so then he goes on to the second prong which is based upon the flawed opinion of mr st cyr which the arbitrator to the extent they found it to lack credibility in order to establish od life permanent total disability status patient has to establish by hundreds of the evidence cited in the city of chicago case  specific activities that were discussed we'll start with the power washing dr kosky testified that he reviewed twenty minutes to videos one of which was a twenty minute video showing the petition often on the video would pause and then jump forward in time and then pause not necessarily pause but it would take a break and not show the position and then the second video showed the fish on the second day of surveillance doing nothing with his spine he simply explained that it cost him pain to do so and that was the objective lee identified with regard to the muscle spasms that he would get and his facts when the he would do those activities and i would also know that petitioner has been continuously prescribed pain medication to deal with those activities so my point in that goes to the fact that different testified yes they did even despite the fact that video wasn't in evidence he did testify yes i did do power washing heard afterwards i did it for approximately to help a friend or approximately two hours afterwards i was hurt i later found out i was laid up on the couch the next day was his statement after that life goes  on so you can't necessarily expect a person simply because they experience pain to stop every single activity of their daily living with regard to money writing and those topics sure testified that he used to have hobbies fishing and hunting but he no longer did those things he used to have a motorcycle in a four wheeler right those things those cost him too much pain so he sold those things he said the last thing he had was my driving and that he did it with his children in his five seconds to drive down so they might have been the longest two periods of forty five seconds of my life while reviewing this but it is a very quick forty five seconds and a person's daily life i'm in his testimony he was an extremely clear if he did it meant that he had at some point in time over the years still done some of those activities he said that what wasn't clear is is that he also has a twenty three year old son that he does this with that also drives the trial were some of the confusion lies as how much the petitioner did it and how much his son was doing it because he did testify that i times when asked about it he said yes my truck competed in that event and he asked my son grow at that event i don't know that he was