replacements whether that was causing related to the accident in question here or related to a preexisting degenerate condition on the t v issue the climate was given a set of restrictions in the end of august twenty seventh she was unable to return to work the employer was unable to accommodate those restrictions later in that fall the claimant decided to file for unemployment benefits for the end of november her medical restrictions were lesson and i believe it was on the thirtieth and the following day december first they actually have the unemployment hearing which the employer as president employer at that time first learned that the restrictions had been lafon she testified of arbitration that had she known that  there was there was a commission sought to believe the claimant in that way yes yes the commission relied on what the claimant had said but i think the point here that we're trying to raise is when the employer believes that the claimant is no longer employed and is off looking for employment on their own what is your obligation to offer work restrictions at that point if you have a worker who leave your employ do you have to track them down and say hey i see your restrictions have have have lessened we're going to offer you an unemployment here she had those at the unemployment here and the question about really whether or not they were sent i think related to the february twelfth twenty twelve restriction and petitioner said well we  get them but there was no documentation to support that the facts of santa was nothing to indicate outside of just the plight of vs c employer as to whether or not that was received but i think we have to look at that attempted notification in the context of the employer thought she wasn't working for her at the time and so i guess in a case like this what we would hope from the court is some guidance on when an employee or who has the hawk the the ability to return to work particularly in light of a case where the employer is aware at some point that the petitioner has gone out and filed on employment and it's looking for jobs elsewhere that will notice conflict even testimony about that issue though that wasn't there basically this troop does does that dynamic change when the petitioner as apparently left the employment and go on to work elsewhere and what at that point is the employer's obligation to you have to then go back to somebody who is no longer working for you and say hey we've got work you can come back to work i i don't know if the law requires an employer to do that and at what point does the employer allow the say you laugh you quit i don't care what your assertions are you lie ok with in which you're saying is the employer was aware of the other decide other employment she'd file the claim and have the employee hearing that i'm not representing that she had another job when she did not so i think in that situation i think when we look at the employer's testimony she said i thought when i found out that he had the unemployment that she didn't want to live he wasn't coming back and he wasn't going to be working for so you know you can say well ok the petitioner sent a restriction to the employer but then again we have to remind yourself that the employer is responsible for monitoring the medical applying and whether or not the employee works there or not you're still going to send them your medical they have a process to perceive the rescue plan so it's got it multiple this have multiple purpose it's not just bringing back the work here we don't really have a situation where the climate is said i want to come back to work she didn't say if all that seem like she said it that at the unemployment hearing and grant you it seem like the two tried to bring it up with the employment here in the hearing office if that that's not why we're here we're not going to talk about that but interestingly the claimant never followed up after that other than to submit that arguable letter in february and yes the employer never followed up on that either so what is the law in the situation where the allegations lie i think that has to be decided before we can look at the facts here and that's really what we're asking court to do on the t v the point on the second issue is that we wanted to raise the total knee replacement now it's my understanding that the climate has already gone undergone this is not in the record but she has a positive mind part of the ways that she has gone ahead and had that surgery the question that we're really asking is was the need for that surgery triggered by this employment event and again i know that your first reaction is going to be were there some conflicting evidence here why isn't this just our standard manifestly evidence situation by i think we would like  we couple that with with a couple other points first of all when dr hockey was asked about whether or not he needed surgery one of the things he looked at was this no doctor record that indicated he was continue to have pain but our point in this is we have a documented listing basically or a lessening of her medical restrictions from the august timeframe to the november timeframe to the february timeframe impute she was clearly improving people who are continuing to have problems don't see they're in the restriction to get better and better and better and when you look at those and you compare those that number eight thirty six of the cited page thirteen of our three and you couple that against the november thirtieth restriction andy wording of that of the february twelfth you see her condition is getting better and better and better that documented evidence is guy i think goes very sharply against the fact that she was having pain and required to have a commission however are determined so to speak that she never return five forty four of his testimony he said that continued the complaints that he saw her for after june eleventh could have been the result of her arthritic condition it was possible that the aggravation that you describe that you're referring to your honor could have been resolved and that her continuing complaints were soley related to her preexisting osteoarthritis and he was asked was a total knee replacement an option for this lady had we if we assume that no accident occurred in a work accident  so we put we put that that opinion next to the preexisting condition and these three documented restriction documents that show that she's getting better and better i think the conclusion that this this need for th so that she had to have surgery i don't think that's that is the question is what was the causal factor for that and we believe that that based on the out the evidence that i've outlined particularly dr hockey acknowledging that it was not this accident  treatment and i think it's clear the record doctor hockey's testimony this case that his testimony was beyond a reasonable rate medical certainty that the work accident was a contributing cause of the need for