operating the accident was asian for these injuries are not dispute mr hucker suffered multiple facial fractures uncomfortable psychologically operating trains because of the injuries incurred in that he was anxious that he would get ahead again by the crane hook mr harper asked the supervisor to resign him to a position that did not require to operate a crane mr hart who was employed as a transportation operator the record shows that come out soon has up to forty different union job positions class the classified as transportation operators only one third of the forty positions were about thirteen hours are required by operate a crane the other twenty seven kilos jockeys focus on package handling primarily operating forklifts upon a transfer request on december fourteenth for teen when he allegedly had a panic attack cooperate in a crane mr harper was taken off of work by to come out sue at that time until he was cleared by as dr mr harper began treating with dr  has stabilized i e has he has really reached them a mind the circuit court room ignore the remainder of the supreme court's decision and interstate scaffolding that also holds that they are poor when determining whether an employee's entitled to compete benefits the test is whether the employee remains temporarily totally disabled as a result of a work related injury and whether the employees capable of returning back to work the commission despite the fact that he had reached an m r i it was not because of what he had returned to the workforce the same but the case of the series yes he was he was not temporarily totally disabled because the spike the treatment he was still having he was able dispositive that he is pretty well i'll bet language isn't interstate scaffolding in the supreme court decision but if you i think you have to read the entire decision from the supreme court  does not preclude somebody wrong not being temporarily totally disabled as a result of the work related injury because the person can return back to work i can i can see i can receive an injury at work a back injury and be off of work for a week or two but then i'm i've recovered enough where i can return back to work but i'm not a demo micah's i still have physical therapy ordered for me i'm still going to physical therapy i might be taking medication i might have a follow up with my my treating physician but i'm  an i believe it can be argued that interstate scaffolding is one of those cases but interstate scaffolding also has in in my opinion a second task for one he is owed and that's when a no longer temporarily totally disabled because of the restriction of no operating a crane and that should continue treatment for the teeth did not preclude him from going back to work as a transportation amare that's my argument  t in addition and all i have an alternative argument to that oh ok my alternative argument is that the interstate schedule you also that benefits may be suspended or terminated if the employer fuses were falling within the physical restrictions provided by his doctor and there were two instances in this case where he refused to return back to work gone within his restrictions the first time this one after he stopped work after he had things i e attack and stop working at july in july twenty third team he went back to come out to an a pit for a permanent reassignment to a different job at that time he was offered a permanent he ultimately chose not to take that shot the second instance where he i believe he refused to work a job that fell within his restriction was one of the reason for his his terminations was that he he did not he did not show and did not call for three consecutive days in violation of the collective bargaining agreement i believe that's a defacto refusal to do work that he should not be rewarded with t t when he fails to show up for work this is different this is a different scenario the maddest act where this court held that stealing cigarettes from the employer was not a refusal to work mr harper's excuse for not calling in was that thought his doctor was contacting konatsu and that excuses as flimsy as is my dog ate my homework there's no evidence in the record that it was reasonable for mr halakhah to believe that the doctor would be sending off work notes come out sewer the reason he was not going to work was that he became ill when he was on vacation his ultimately going back to work does not cure the fact that there was a defact refusal to do the job can't you can't take that back i mean if you're if you're not going to to work you're not doing what you should you're supposed to be doing you can't say oh well my bad i'm going to come back to work and  here is that it shouldn't be so my primary argument was that he's if you if and i think that this court needs to follow the true intention of o work but i still have doctor's appointments i'm still doing physical therapy i might have a shot schedule for the next week i can't say i can't not go to work even though i'm capable of returning back to work and say hey bt because i'm not an m the i'm perfectly capable of returning back to work that's the same thing that mr halakhah was able to do because of the set up that come out sue because of the union set up he was able to go back to them to full duty work as a t o granted he wasn't operating a crane but there were teoh's that did not break a crane so he is assigned within the union person procedures to go back as a tio and that's what this court should follow and alternatively if you're i have my alternative arguments but i think the the standard a review in this case should be the manifest weight there are in principle is that different inference is that can be determined by either commission as to when a person is  is temporarily totally sable and when when they are not so i think that this clearly falls within a manifest weight i think the record supports the commission's decision that it was that the denial of t t was not against the manifest way that the evidence in the circuit court's order must be reverse court should follow the true intention of interstate scaffolding i completely agree with that this is a day novo review interstate scaffolding came about because injured workers get fired all the time and eleanor we've got a little bit tired of that is urging is that their protection from getting fired should end this soon as they returned to restricted duty work because now they're back to work well that's exactly the time that they need the protection if their protection ended when they scaffolding decision it's not ambiguous it requires two things that work or not be a man by and that they have restrictions there is no factual dispute here that mr pollack or was not a given by he's waiting for his facial bones to harden to a level of permanency so that he can have dental work drilled into their they took bone from his hip to remake a we wouldn't be here today but they decided that they needed to make sure that he did every part of his job so obviously operating the crane your honor must be an important part of this job because my guy begged and begged to not do it avoided and they made him  that but that's not how it played out he was back doing his job they put him into another department where he would use the crane last but they still made him operate the crane it wasn't until there i am be there the occupation health doctor and my client's doctor and then a counselor all said the guy can't be around a crane right now that's when they finally left him alone and put him out there but that restriction he meets the requirements of interstate scaffolding t hopefully a temporary restriction he is clearly not of the human mind and we need a bright line i think this hellboy supreme court is trying to give us a bright line this is a medical determination made by doctors well but interstate staff employee remains temporarily totally disabled as a result of work related injury and whether it be employees capable of returning to the work force so it would save that it's not completely determined t or maker is somebody else going to take that union boilermaker if we're looking at whether he could get employed outside which the commission tried to also kind of suggest that we needed to show that he was significantly limited in working in where then  i would claim to this court that for a union boilermaker to walk into a new employment situation and say oh and by the way i'm in treatment for p t s d and i can't go near crane's i think that restriction would be enough to keep him from being the decision itself is clear that the dispositive issue is whether they're an m r i and that if the commission is trying to water that down and and make it something else and i think that's an error we need a bright line we've got a medical spot here medical determination and i think that's what the interstate scaffolding decision wants us to be looking at thank you  i don't think a bright line helps anybody i think every case should be treated to term and on its merits and on the on the facts and every case should be considered as unique as they are you give you want to use a bright that you're describing despite your condition despite the treatment that you still need you're able to return back to your regular job duties your your full job duties in the position that you were hired for no he was performing the full duties of a transportation operator were in the job assignment that he had at that point time so he was not temporarily told he was not temporarily totally stable he was not totally disabled despite the fact that he was still treating for his teeth despite the fact that he had a restriction of no crane operator he showed up that day that day well let's say the day before he went on vacation he was performing all the duties that was work that were required  transportation operator when he showed up on that day this is not a light duty position this is not a made up job this is not him sitting you know only papers out a chair this is him doing what other what twenty seven other people are doing salary that he had with come out soon that the treatment that he was receiving for his teeth would not affected his ability of to work those jobs and up to the restriction of no crane would not affect his ability to shop he even testified that he had a good despite your ongoing treatment and your many restrictions you have and and at the time of your term a nation whether or not you can return back to the workforce the spite your ongoing treatment any restrictions you