you when i got the decision i scratch my head cannot continue to be puzzled by the arbitration commission decision here particularly the commission's finding that there was no t d and that the petitioner was disabled for incapable of working this is a fifty three year old woman who worked very hard time job for bus company a couple hours in the morning working as it was modern with disabled children she go back home for lunch come back for a couple of hours later in the time basis she slipped and fell in december of two thousand and nine and injured her back and she had significant injuries to her lower back that resulted in numerous surgeries the first one was a three level  decompression infusion in april of two thousand and ten it was successful for relieving her right leg ridiculous that the but it did not resolvable back pain and unfortunately she developed an immediate left foot drop bad examination there are a position is in there is no stable market for a dispatcher the other is ition she's talking about as if she comes up with four jobs as a core all of which petitioner apply for another which responded to her application for work and prior to the boss was strictly again a small photography office they didn't even have a computer system and asked this fifty six year old woman at the time to now start work in a different capacity altogether commission this is  came to november oh no member third bernstein notes that she walks with an angle gauge demonstrated his minutes reflexes claim they failed pay the extensive medical expenses they failed to pay the t t benefits they failed to pay the maintenance benefits why are penalties appropriate in this case i think the reason is quite clear when you look at the testimony of dr employment without seriously in danger in her health for life she failed to prove that she can talk to a genuine diligent search your employment and to the extent that it's been suggested that they ignored her doctor's opinions the next sentence the doctor's apostrophe s apostrophe opinions to the contrary are not consistent with the evidence and it's nowhere in the commission's decision described that she had help with the photography studio which was both big production and it had mistreated position and she extrapolated from those what probable work capabilities would be as well as our capabilities that she why i don't stand before you ask you did we weigh the evidence that's presented here what i ask a public court to do is to consider the evidence that the commission never considered the commission decision point clearly s to say that she had permanent disability he says with respect to her back she has a permanent disability right he didn't say she was permanently and totally disabled he said she has a problem disability or people who have permanent disability who still work well there's a difference so that the commission only said the last time any doctor said she was permanently and totally disabled was the act will prove to me it may concern work they never said they never said that there wasn't an opinion that she had a permanent disability you know that you said there was no opinion from the dark area for the update to choosing capable of working now we opinions to the contrary are not consistent with the evidence in the end it is in response to a statement the petitioner can perform sedentary write him one so you know totally disabled from work there is the only opinion octu mom we get the last time cheap or from an opinion they said she was totally does a move from working