they placed too much weight on the medical evidence problem total disbelief which i don't think led me to believe that they did not quite a proper standard when determining whether the person that they did not find him credible because my client had written a letter to the doctor and asked for his opinion about the pro germination this case they look only to dr scheiner works testimony they look only to the idea that they did not find him credible to the exclusion of any of the rest of the doctors that's that's the true there is no mention in the medical evidence analysis of doctors or net saying that he thought this gentleman was employed at all there's simply no mention in are tables at the end of the valley taco bell it's the grating to them and i think that's just a human factor that is involved in all this but it doesn't affect this gentleman's  he said there were simply jobs that this guy do now i further asked him how many of those jobs were there dan i think he says there were two simply jobs  all of those four hundred jobs that he could get i mean that you i don't think that's a lie with all due respect i don't think she's telling the doctor to lie in effect i think the doctor in order to avoid that insinuation said no i'm not going to do it until you come in for an examination everything for absolutely arguing evidence you may disagree with what the commission did here an obvious because we're hearing appeal but the issue is is not what the individual court numbers might write in this case if they were the fact finder issue for this panel is whether the commission's decision is against them at this way the evidence and it's a very difficult burden as it should be in the appellate court the mr houston is now being denied they awarded him a max rate which differential which was about the pickle actually that the time was five hundred fifty dollars and forty seven cents so mr houston does have going forward from the date of trial  and even going back in time this wage differential award which the commission awarded to him so he does have that also he has open medical rights  i thought it was important to point out briefly at the beginning that he he is getting in the aki is getting the eighty one award which is one of the proper statutory findings the commission make in a case like  this the second and that's the primary finding of the commission was setting aside of the perm total of more than giving him the you want to work the second finding was they basically determined his job search efforts were not genuine  time in april two thousand and six so for able to thousand and six forward through the data trial which was may of zero nine they took away from him the t t d and said now you get a wage differential we're going back from the end of my declaration day moving forward again into the future those are the two key findings of the commission which were different from the earth a traitor there was an initial t t d were made of accident through and then my credibility those are statements in the commission decision in the commission made detailed findings if you take the chance to read what the commission did here they wrote six or seven pages of detail findings of fact and i think overall  they covered the bases they obviously were persuaded by the evidence that the employer introduced about the double dipping of the pain medications mr hughson did that over a number of months with two different physicians both the first doctor of the pain management doctor and then the second pain management doctor and then there was even an e r visit where he went got additional pain medications and the commission looked at that in terms of mr houston's is a state of mind is something that is difficult for us to look at because we can't get into somebodies state of mind but we can look at that person's conduct over time and look and answer commission looked at was that they call it a manifesto that's right or you know but there were six page letter that he wrote and dr scheiner works deposition it's an exhibit in includes that whole t brief when you're on a read from about these don't put anything in you know that the insurance company can contradict and it needs to say exactly this and mr houston knew what he was doing apparently because he's consulting with a lawyer and it's not mr patrick and i want to say that all he's consulting with somewhere that's guiding him in this process so what we have is a gentleman obtaining an opinion of from a total disability for purposes of litigation from his physician dr scheiner work at the same  thousand dollars last week and maintenance and at the same time we're doing that and been allstars he's going to dr scheiner work and asking for him to write upon total disability and then and it taints the whole process and that's what the letter in context and i understand patients go to doctors and ask them you know doctor you know i don't believe i work you know i got this worker's comp case and usually you know right opinion but it's an lie or not kill tree he wants i don't believe so and i don't take issue with that simply because to me that says don't win something in there that isn't true if the insurance can say no that's not true that's what i think it will it means by the insurance you  these other gentlemen might agree with me one thing the counsel pointed out you said to him and in the commission commented on the problems with the quality of the job search maybe he didn't apply all of these in person as they suggested but i want to remind the gentleman that four hundred of these places were given to him by they were giving that to mr hammond or to mr houston by the people the insurance company hired to help him find work and they let him go through not ten places and the side of the cutting off they went through four hundred places and then they decided since this guy is not finding the job we better be doing something about this because we don't want fair cells and to approach anymore and they reinvent the wheel going backwards that this is the practicality of what happened they they have plenty of time to say to work with them and say you're not doing it correctly but they did so i submit that that means they didn't have a problem this got a lot of places