are determined yes i agree that's what the statute says but i don't think that we can get to any of those factors until you first have a report that provides for a while up in paris in other words you must  but before they can even consider the reported level along with these other factors it's continental's position that the report has to say never seen your position and i ask you know it says for accidental injuries that occur on or after september one two thousand and eleven a permanent partial disability shall be established using the following criteria right and they l meaningless unless there is an actual level of impairment which would be at least one percent what is that meaning was he if we  any permit partial disability but as long as you have one percent then they can balance all those other factors against that and decide if they don't have to consider the report they don't have to accept a report at zero so binding on them statute says in determining the level of disability the relevance and weight of any crackers used in addition to the level of impairment as reported by the physician must be explained in a written order now they didn't list all the factors i don't know the statues entirely clear yes and i believe the purpose much like many of the other amendments in september one of two thousand and eleven was to reduce the cost and values of workers compensation cases and i believe that write a general purpose but to say anything above your interpretation that without a minimum level of impairment the commission's hands are tied i believe it does provide that there must be a report level pearman and i guess that's where there's a disagreement here on the interpretation because if you say report the level of impairment that suggests that the physician must give some level of impairment i now it's up to the courts because fine with that i believe so and i believe that if you look at subsection b the fact that it talks about shall base its determination on the reported level of impairment as one of the factors  knowledge and it says no single factor is the sole determinant but then they go on to say in determining the disability the relevance and weight of any factors presumably that referring to those other four and in a dish and the level of impairment so i think that with the legislators ruling ted was here to say let's bring these ratings into play and it's long as somebody says there are some level of impairment then well balance that level of parent residual symptoms not just that a record that is correct because i think it says yeah evidence of disability corroborated by treating medical records right but they consider also his description of his residual symptom bet is correct they they did put that in there but i don't think they explained out how that equated to five percent is my point i think all those other factors their age they didn't say and and frankly the statute doesn't really give us any direction or give the commission a direct hit on what age means i mean they don't really give you any direction on how occupation applies to determining but level of disability they go give you any indication on the future earning  any true direction to the commission on how to apply them and here there are just other than some occasional soreness there's there's absolutely no objective babbit is that there's anything w parent in this case there was a ciro percent so there's a zero percent level of impairment that should be considered one with the other four factors in a determination as to the permanent disability now what he i believe is saying zero percent means there's no impairment there where it disappears well if you buy a car and you get zero percent financing it doesn't mean you didn't get finance it just means that your percentage was finances ok well yes i did i get zero percent i could have got a better day better deal if i would have paid cash back let's say let's say they offered me five thousand dollars cash back and it showed up and said look i got cash back it's a better deal side ongoing difficulties in the performance of his daily activities and that would be a consideration increment partial this because it affects  status that the determination of permanent partial disability shelby's they have was using following criteria so this is the criteria that the commission m order to a word permanent partial disability yes the question becomes when the report says there is no permanent partial disability and your financing argument doesn't fit the bill because  permanent partial impairment and that's in the report zero zero and so your opponent is saying once that happens you don't go any further there has to be something now they can change the numbers if it's there but if it's not  no single factor should be the sole determinant so if one of the factors is zero then you look at the other factors who who is to get who is to get this report this was possibility to get it yeah you mean to zero percent correct but all i have to make sure is that it is in the record right so if they buy it and i put it into evidence then i have satisfied my requirement that a physicians report in support of our permanent partial disability in this report is number five the claimant describes some minor residual symptoms in the wrist none of the rest of that support at all  they relied on the fracture to the wrist in the minor residual symptoms and that overcame the expert medical opinion of zero well if you zero wasn't there may be able to get ten percent it was supposed then what in essence the legislature place the matter is totally in the hands of a single position and then if they make he makes a decision if you make a decision the commission then really doesn't decide the case  case is over the commission has no discretion right and that's what the legislature intended was that a board was on the petitioner to prove some type of been herridge and the first way to prove the impairment or the first we must prove the different and if the commission says he has zero impairment in the commission to five percent it is no difference there is what you see because there is impairment because the doctor says there's an agreement that is correct so that means the doctor's report has his finger on the front on scale correct it's a doctor's report that tips the scale one way or another it gets you in the door but it doesn't say that it does because it says you have to have the report stating a level of impairment  these determinations but another way is there another provision of the act that limits the commission's exercise of discretion so why according to her  to any permanent partial disability the doctor again decides the case and that's right in this case because nobody came forward with a rating saying that there was so lovable of impairment ok but that isn't here is it with you that the legislature can always change the language but i believe what the intent was here is that it has to be greater than zero advisement written disposition well