through medical surgical procedure are supposed to do that on their own vocational assessment to the injured order and then in the beginning this woman was a convicted nonviolent that's what you're presenting you're saying the commissionaire the commission errors and the one they didn't address the issue of maintenance and off they didn't address the saying is that the commission didn't address the issues which are on the stipulation she's a vocational assessment under seventy one time and  and it should have been t t d and the commission it's like night and day she's all of a sudden chimerica is dreams she planned all this is  she started having the surgery which was a problem and there's a question about this the validity of the doctor behind me doctors opinions and conclusion quote the commission finds misspoke really not credible the picture painted by miss forward he is at best will direct us it is a good as if she is opening a fortune cookie and looking inside for a price the facts at hand but a lot of a permanent total disability finding her thumb injury has been repaired and now she claims total ballad body failure her claim is as without merit as she is without credibility t these aren't my words these are the words of my employers this is the unanimous hand of commissioners they put this in their decision after weighing the evidence so three times in these few sentences they overstated the problem she was currently experiencing to convince others she was disable you commented on dr fenton bender as your honor dr venter found no evidence to support the claim that her hand was  she's using a wheelchair this came up in oral arguments that commission no doctors ever prescribe that wheelchair and then she lied to dr susan about the history involved here now as noted in my brief the commission is the  witness credibility it absolutely got it right here your honour's there's more than enough evidence to support its decision commission weighed the evidence of the treating doctors with those of the doctors we had examined her and again specifically found doctors vendor and doctors can now and persuasive they come in on dr bender indicating no true objective package in the right hand no basis for any alleged current condition to be related to the june two thousand six incidents and as your honor said no need for work restrictions dr good now i commented on the fact the petitioner worked for two years at the different employers after the june two thousand and sixteen incident counsel commented that this was a light duty accounting job this is her work she's an accountant it's a full duty job for her because she's an office worker doing accounting work but it wasn't anything different that she was doing in that verse of the job prior to the june two thousand  nineteen b to get the surgery awarded at that time you're on the she didn't back again now and also comments not an accurate reliable history provided again she's trying to convince people that she's disabled the commission picked up on this  honor so the commission went to sparta right over this claim her fibromyalgia is related to the work accident is nothing more than a ruse to get permanent total disability linking fibromyalgia to the accident is is appears the substance of your argument that well not only did they not find her credible but they weighed the evidence they looked at her experts compared them to our experts found our experts more persuasive they found her experts can try this is in the decision to go on to say even if she had somehow found causation of the commission found causation for fibromyalgia she still failed to prove that she was permanently and totally disabled she was working she worked after this for two years the commission correctly found that there was no evidence that her injury impaired her disability no evidence she performed a job search and this is after the surgeries rehabilitation absolutely it was fully disputed whether vocational rehabilitation was appropriate and that was brought up in my brief and that you could case there is a well about the rule indicating ational rehabilitation is appropriate in response you should offer the same that was a fully disputed issues here as evidenced by the commission's decision weighing the experts and finding that she gainfully employed there were no jobs in the area for her to do there their fear factor whether it's wasn't given all the records by the phone and wrote that she could not do anything because she's a convicted felon she couldn't get a job she never mother she didn't know what she was doing that the basis for her decision she was  and i agree there's no need i've never i've been doing this almost forty years i've never seen a decision written with a language that is almost all races be calling a person like this who comes out of but why why why why is it seems like she's being treated worse than the workers come back that she would be if she had any illness and she was in prison and i don't want to say that but that's what the