that i appealed on is the issue of temporary chewable disability i will try to limit speaking at all on the medical issue until come to talks about they had but for the most part justice again as a manifest word of the evidence  at the commission decision i think it is important to note that the arbitrator did have different bindings there with regards to the video but the video itself is less than an hour long and in the video there are a few occasions where you can see use of the left hand now i think there are a couple of occasions where when she's going to hit she will use her left hand to claim to hold the right hand of the ball and there are a couple of occasions where she is holding the ball with both hands what the commission determined was the our home after seeing mr video we don't agree that she's in child and more temporary total disability because we really just don't think she's very credible and  doing that because they have to have support for the finding of the concern about petitioners credibility and they say because of this video we don't believe petitioner and representations about what she can do well they have to have support for that what is petitioner representing that she can do petitioner testified i'm good for about three to four hours i can do housework or three to four hours i can use my hands for three to four hours i can do activities w predominantly use my writing and for twenty four three to four hours then start to have problems so the question i would have it is how does this video change one question video what she's doing with her left hand is incredibly minimal which is why although i know you don't give intelligence to the opportunity decision he points out very well what she does it is not i mean she is not bowling with her  left hand if she were i probably wouldn't be here but the point is the activity that she's doing in this video is consistent with her testimony i'm good about three or four hours we all know or she would have been after doing this for three to four hours but it wasn't m this is less than an hour and it's a very minimal not only that the commission seems to accept that because it's a real and it's on page two of their decision while it's true that the activities are not a candid continuous work task they r issue really came out because they had on this continuous bagging job which she did for a few hours a couple of times once in july and once in february and ended up in occupational house where they were objective findings of swelling and that is where the two t d s you came out because after that show the point is she does have pain complaints but her pain complaints are good for about three to four hours this video more than four hours rather than saying she couldn't do the begging job for three or four hours we're saying you can't do that it's a problem so the question becomes this isn't somebody who's holding themselves out not able to do anything she testified at a hearing four hours it that it doesn't suggest that she's not got about three or four hours arm so i don't think there's anything in the video that would substantiate cutting off the t v i mean the video is consistent with all the other evident truth good for about three to four hours we don't know anything from the video that would suggest that she could do eight hours of repetitive bag she might be able to do eight hours of something else but she's willing to do eight hours of something else so i shown in that video is is just does the arbitrator described which is minimal it's minimal it's nothing that would suggest that for more than four hours this woman could do this continuous backing job and they they did not offer it to her again she continued their medical treatment after february eighteenth two thousand and nine they didn't offer her any work the last work she did they were sorting scripts and offered to then come back and say can you try this again now even though you've been treating for another she had nerve blocks in between there and they didn't come back and say you know after we see this we think she should try this bagging job you get again because maybe she'll be able to do it what the what my understanding of what they mean by that is anything after march i believe twenty fifth two thousand and nothing i would raise that which which comes back to my argument i was unwilling here on more than just three weeks of t d could impact some of that certainly i've depending on whether or not this was found to be an appropriate finding when the commission and other words i mean have a problem with t c f this is out how any work to her so to assume this is an open ended job why wasn't it open ended between july and february so even if you believe which i had don't think there is support for again it's not like they saw necessarily whether she can work in some capacity but whether she can she can do this particular job she's willing to work in some capacity and they've never offered her anything else she said because testified to that you cannot perform the job one hand so a suggestion that that means that that miss moore could also do it more than four hours and i don't know what that suggestion answered by our right at with regards to the statement that she is good for about three to four hours with regards to the medical issue and the complex regional pain syndrome the suggestion that the commission rejected dr clock or that his refusal to answer questions had anything to do with this is no where on with the session and the fact the decision of the commission is to the contrary the commission awarded all of her treatment through the date of hearing your thing they the finding that she had complex regional pain syndrome and the commission awarded all of her treatment the only thing they did was baking any future treatment based upon this video that is what the circuit court agreed with me on th commission was inappropriate to do and no reason this there's no evidence here again that what economists video is less than one hour would mean the entire complex regional pain syndrome resolved where is the medical evidence and that means that resolved there is no evidence here were any medical x or anything for that matter sad as if you can assist your dominant hand  and she's da there is no evidence to support that mind and this requiring with me there's nothing in the record to support that finding no matter what you find on t v doctoring or men doesn't support that binding she doesn't think she had honesty to begin with her opinions been rejected so the question becomes metally was it appropriate to vacate did so want a future medical based upon a video when there is really no support in the record that what she was doing with the left hand in that video which again may encourage you to look at because it is not much what she was doing and in any way suggests that medically this condition no