this case is not an odd lot this is a case where permanent and total disability was established by the preponderance of the medical evidence under federal the preponderance of medical testimony establishes the disability there is to be no consideration on her not my theory in our case the arbitrator in this decision made clear that he was facing his decision of drowsing tired of is treatment over a period of five years or longer he repeatedly stated he missed our marriage was permanently and totally disabled because of his cervical condition arm and right shoulder should remain off examiner states that he recommends a period of working dishing to try to strengthen functional deficit so that employed me safely return to work her evidence let me ask you differently is there any legal impediment to a the commission believing the f c a over the doctor's opinion i whatever basis to come to the conclusion i think the problem is this many times i don't think that his vision enough by itself to override the medical doctors opinion regarding his own patient that he's seen serial exams over five years he says this patient cannot return to work well this is a problem we're having is health care returned to work because of his medical condition credit but isn't the commission really in this whole scheme of things with thirty pounds over shoulder five times and then you've got that is not the same thing as medical and it might be a tool that a doctor can rely on and interpret whether it's valid or not or a political  with other doctors in this case besides dr michael in early two thousand and seven the period we're seeing my doctor james porno at the p d surgeon who said that the patient should avoid lifting twenty pounds and any a patient through a series of exercises that doesn't make it medically perceptible doesn't mean he can then safely return to work and live twenty pounds over his shoulder when doctors are saying he should not be doing  did not at that time any opinions regarding workability or permanency without further information they never sent a patient back i've been the same thing with the aug twenty first two why then i mean does it make any sense for the commission to jump to an odd lot analysis after you know citing the permanent toll disability testimony by the medical expert cite does that make any sense to you that they'd start citing weston there i mean the evidence of permanency it is different than medical testimony of permanent total disability you agree with that position that only offered that medical testimony that was not enough to shut up the park to the employer if the only evidence in the case was a doctor saying this man is per medically permanently totally disabled and that was the end of the case understand but i'm concerned with the analysis that both the arbitrator and the commission did here why did they jump into this odd lot in their office they never analyzed whether or not there was proof from a total disability by medical testimony medically probably totally disabled and so you know didn't the commission here take a medical permanent total case and analyze it under our blood theory i mean of course he  commission's decision to for some reason jump into our in the totality of the entirety of the medical evidence was that it was permanent totally disabled was completely erroneous i don't even know the majority of those opinion decision sites all about michael's ongoing notes and treatments where he emphasizes over and over again his opinions are mentally the same the final paragraph of the decision from pete reason to explain his limitations but i don't have an opinion i'm not going to comment on the other doctor's opinion right i'm not making a psychiatric evaluation and the