commission on behalf of all their presentation is that the archer we commission of peers their discretion on the conduct of hearings in the case first the arbitrator conducted the hearing of july fourteenth two thousand ten at that time the claimant miss cottage not reassured maximum vocational potential through rehabilitation under the testimony of vocational expert mr minnick there was a common motion to continue the case filed with the commission and it was argued in the first five to ten pages of the arbitration transcript to step back and merrily explained how we got to that point the claimant missed cars had been a store manager for all the as a strong manager she had to send out the merchandise for sale she had to schedule the assistant managers and cashiers and had to supervise their work she had to order merchandise from the distribution center she had they had all the argument was that you know you can't have a succession and you can't have a succession of step decreases in an eighty one benefit because of the fact that the ball requires there  bureau of labor statistics this that excuse me based on pure of labor statistics the wage range for persons like the claimant in the establish store manager she should take that as a first step yes but she should also at the time when she took the job she said that she was going to take the system manager job that there are promotion prospects with them prairie enterprise after a couple months she said oh there really don't seem to be any promotion prospects of them per year or prizes because of the fact very enterprise business has only two stores and they have incumbent managers and so mr manning said well because of the fact that the the object of rehabilitation under national team president president is to maximize the claimant's earning power after the injury and that's what we're attempting to do to maximize or earning power that should lead to the benefit of both the claimant and the employer to maximize the client's earning power it's not only with respect to her wages even though that's the only thing we consider under the workers compensation what we're trying to do here is to resolve the problem between the fact that you just have one opportunity to make an eighty one opinion and ruling and decision  that at the time of the hearing one must bring in the future expectations for what that person is going to earn in the future but yet you worry about is the expectation presented by the words for the future i believe it was another abuse of discretion by the commission not to allow the remaining from consideration of additional evidence what happened there was the the counsel for the clever was sending in wast somewhere that we would continue paying the waste differences while the matter was pending on review before the commission not after their view was decided but during the pendency of the review and noticed notice that they  wages were increased so mated major motion before the ship before the commission to remand the case to the arbitrator to take additional five minutes the wages were changed and the rehabilitate the claimant to the maximum that she can be rehabilitated which benefits the claimant to the extent and because of the fact that she would then on the best salary in the best benefits that she could going forward benefit the respondent in the sense of reducing or eliminating the eighty one benefit so when one proposed signs and i'm trying to express and carry out for them and ask the court to carry matter of wages yes that's what cason said but of the time we made the motion for remained the eighty one wasn't final their forecast is didn't speak to that situation and the commission's ruling to deny th an issue the climate still isn't the same general line of employment of store management and she never was there for the initial criteria for an eighty one is not met in this case and there is another separate legal reason