because of the posterous case the first thing that we need to do is take a look at the original commission decision one ten and ask ourselves is that case is that ruling by the commission against a man this way yes and just to recall but her and her dissent was limited to the extent of the permanent partial disability in other words it was fifty percent maybe she thought it should have been sixty or seventy or something along those lines when we took this case to the circuit court of originally is that the original commission soon found first that mr weaver was not credible it said we've heard presented no convincing evidence that he is disabled to the extent he claims to play they did not believe him they say this as they start their analysis and then as they walk through their decision as they are talking about dr batten makers records they point out the points where petitioner claims he couldn't travel out of state did on three occasions they point out dr mike mike meyer degree of pain described in his testimony it seems inconsistent he would not agree could trial of a spinal cord stimulator that they didn't stop there then they were to kill asli went through all the medical opinions in this case going back to one nine hundred ninety nine  in this case and they went through and they dissected those opinions and said we don't believe what this doctor said we don't find that to be persuasive specifically the two doctors in this case of particular relies on dr  in the original case but not only did it go through the medical and it found dr flatters opinions being the most credible but then it went on it did the same analysis of prospective the vocational opinions and again it went through it rejected  clearly it was a job opportunity for him to pursue and if you look at the last two paragraphs of the commission's original decision it clearly place a lot of emphasis on that job opportunity and the fact there were numerous attempts by look to get them to pay attention to this to follow up go through the interview the code rejected over and over and over again so after we presented our arguments to the circuit court in the first occasion what we get is an opinion  reversing and doing all the things that your decision say that a court of review is not supposed to do in or getting the court's own opinions or reassessing the witnesses credibility going back to the medic and said i don't really believe that doctor i think this doctor is more credible that doctors a traitor he's more familiar with the background of this individual this doctor might be biased because he's an i and me i don't believe this as he uses his quote job offer any does it throughout his description clearly what the circuit court did in the first instance is to completely interject his own opinions into this case said the case back now the thing i thought was really interesting is when when when mr vance and i show up to argue this case the commission the second time we walk up to the commission dancing the night somebody has to sit through that evidence and say yeah i understand there's a hole here but i'm going to rely on this part i'm going to reject this part and while this may reach a decision and when that happens we all know that that's a whether responsibility of review in court is if you consider filing a motion to reconsider the proffered oh absolutely not no i don't i do not i typically don't do that now all right but i made it given what appears to be say there is inconsistent seat by fletcher fletcher basically found all the same findings is that going to war he said there's definitely positive findings he's got abnormal exam it's the most house so he can do phone interviews he doesn't even have a computer you know they even have a room for she never spoke to it the man city could hardly be to write his health computer skills and that's why did weber say hey this is  this is my second part of my argument that this is a legal issue here and the commission when they were there heard the evidence again and they read this side of it if you decide to go on the facts if there was no realistic offering by the employer then he could even do a menial task and that he had proven through the medical evidence that he's totally permit this able any according to dr nor he couldn't even do sedentary work fletcher agreed with him and so if the commission made that fine day that he was totally probably disabled because of no showing by the employer  any work that he could even do then that's a legal finding and that's my second issue with the capes and so we can consider this is easy as by the courts to show that judge webber was crap in reversing it based on manifest with the evidence and we can show that the commission was correct because they decided the case they re decided the case on the basis that there was no showing by the employer  in any event i believe that the commission was wrecked on the second pull down and let's look at this if the commission wasn't correct why didn't they just increase at ten percent why didn't th disability did he ever said that he said i'm just merely mending back for you to consider the evidence of commissioner mason consider the it consisted of the medical and consider the fact that he the job offering shown by the rich was not a buyable of concrete evidence of any realistic and one and that's a legal issue of the case that when you prove and show the evidence of all of that once the point presents medical evidence of his total disability the burden shifts to the employer to present evidence of some kind of work is regularly and consistently available to the person that's the only they've ever seen he has to stand up to go to the bathroom this man and doctor rather make or if you read his testimony it's sick strangely credible he's known the man for twenty years this this this petitioner worked for can't be any clearer we look at what the commission said the second time they said they're saying i feel boxed in by the remained language it's absolutely utterly clear there's no argument while warren's arguments  t compelling points they're great before the commission as the finder of fact and he made these arguments to the finder of fact says that doctors are not credible my doctor is he says this about these c d s this is a scope of a job offer all that stuff was made it was rejected if we lost a case of the commission the first time i'd be having the same hard time he should be having right now trying to convince a court that should be reversed and there don't legal question here this is a case it's clearly commission said it was that i think that's what makes it clearer and again when we look at it the second language i have never seen the commission say something like this to this request suppressed ration that i saw the argument all end of the story which big would you be here just with the word was seventy percent i don't know i have tacked up my client about that question but i think it would be a different scenario for us to  all they would have done the man we invited to do that only men were step brother commission said look that's what you think you need to do look at it evaluated raise it and we'll consider what we want to do about it but this is a