or by proving that she's not employable in any well known branch of the labor market in the case of far the condition that fortunately never addressed the diligence of claimants job search nonetheless the record indicates that  to this claim that if you read the commission's decision because mission never found that employer made its burden to prove that suitable work is regularly continuously available for this claim in fact if i m they they found they responded did nothing because the only evidence they relied on was by my team and they specifically stated that the market did not establish such a stable labor market exists the second issue i'd like to bring before you  circuit court reversed the commission establishes dead justice credit misunderstood the commission's rationale for  awarding the penalties the commission awarded penalties and fees here because following clayton second work accident of july twenty eight hundred eighty nine employer will never provide a a status causal connection that was the proverbial new deal in the problem against employer here that indicates penalties are awarded to one of the first raiser arising out of the friends that is in the cro remainder of the facts and the medical evidence as well as you look at patsy this is vocational assessment taken out of this claim that she did ten to thirteen beds a day and time she she exceeded one hundred the evidence and therefore her decision in that regard should should be reversed by these these justices they very much against manifest way that it's and should be reversed that is because it best because that when we look at miss they're rising out of component of risks are divided into three categories we have employment we have personal and we have neutral fight this risk as a neutral risk but then they didn't take that analysis in the right direction because once you've identified it as a neutral risk there's got to be something about the employment which is qualitatively or quantitatively makes that it's a risk but it's not even making the bet it's the bending over so that that's really what's going on here she's bending over braids she's bending over at the time and that's what she said her testimony is actually that her her back was hurting throughout the day it was hurting and hurting and hurting that well that's not the testimony though her testimony was very clear that she the only testimony in this record is that she made the best approximately two or three she actually wasn't sure how many beds she had ma fell to the floor and then she did say that upon further questioning there was another question from counsel was there something in particular you were doing she said i had you know my hand on the mattress so i and i appreciate it making a distinction here but the testimony really was does clean hotel rooms i mean i don't dispute that but it could test me was that she only had two or three and there's nothing that said that because of those the fact that she she had clean two or three motel rooms in any way increased that risk at that moment she they did was make a prima facia finding that then was rebutted by mr bell montes opinion that in fact she could you know access the market by having a ged i think that itself shows that she never was able to meet her additional initial can indicated they were both well spoken and you know they both had differing opinions and weighing those opinions he came up with the fact that she did not she was not totally totally disabled in that you know that's the commission's function to do so  was we have to look at object to reasonable this was that reason by the time for the respondent not to pay these benefits the first image to look at is obviously the accident disputed but also the histories that were being provided by the claimant in around the time to the different medical providers i think dr shelter even says at one point in the medical records that she's a poor historian they were unclear as to what happened there's one where she's buffing and floors i mean clearly that's not it we also had video surveillance in and around that hundred ninety showing her completely capable and able to function she was washing her car she was doing groceries it certainly was reasonable for the responded to bank hey are we sure there was even an accident that occurred here wh rob we don't that we can't talk to the claimant so the first i mean this isn't like you know in civil courts where we have discovered we know what's going on the first time a lot of times the first time we ever hear the story is when the claimant is on the speaking and testifying at trial i mean that's that's a lot of times is the first time we have to actually know what may or may not have transpired otherwise it's just from medical records and well being i mean i know she was obviously was an employee bias anyone who was never in on the incident reporting and so the first time you have a hue the story is when she's on the stand so that that would be why it would be the first time that we heard which relative to i don't know in the record whether or not there is actually a letter that was put in the record so i can't tell you that again i don't i don't see that letter in the record i do know that there was a response by the responded to the petition for penalties that was put into the record but it was objective i mean so we have to go back to say was it objective league reasonable for the employer to say hey we don't owe this woman benefits and i think looking at everything looking at the history of the confused histories and the fact that we had the video surveillance and the fact that we should get back to the doctor in cook county she started treating for l five past one which was never implicated when she first went to the doctor sac and dr mats after the first  injuries in fact she was treated for al to al to al three level so then we have you know we have video surveillance we have is a delay in treatment and then she has surgery that i'll fight as one level i think it would be reasonable for the respondent been to question does this idea i would like that world but i don't have no so you're going to be inclined to do that for me but i do think that it does show the objective measure of reasonableness if one dissenting commissioner certainly finds that there should have been an accident i mean i think it honors briefly goes to the penalty issue once again a council makes very passionate arguments about the reason most of their behavior but once again i think we need to look at their behavior in context the time be condition rule that requires employers to provide with exploration for the benefits within days is there for a reason it's so that injured workers know that their claim is being disputed and the basis for the denial to sit separate condition of building frag each accident and here i believe respondents old means have done a beautiful job for me in that regard after accident while we have dr meds who are  s with severe stenosis said zero three four l four five additionally i would point out the fact that unlike city chicago where worker after accident one really had no return to work full duty and had no indications of any permanency from the first accident here we had s c e done and put a restriction zwerg post dr mansard disagreed with those restrictions and that's why they went back to work and attempted to work full ninety eight causing difference also she literally worked only ten days it was continually complaining of pain within that time frame there was never a point where she came back to work got better this is you know a separate into been invisible injury