they not get it right the result is a windfall for the petitioner and important when i'm well aware of the manifest weight of the evidence standard i'm aware that in order for the commission to be overturned clearly opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent compelled by the me the standard exists because sometimes lord courts get these cases wrong to me this appeal is an opportunity to look at the facts of this case and come to clearly proper conclusion which is sr is not and was not entitled to section functional capacity evaluation is warranted and needed figure out if there's a strength emphasis or impediments differently than from returning work bricklayer so needed to absolutely correct that's correct and both of those established as he could not meet the physical requirements of the book bricklayer occupation or i do not agree with that you don't i def the first word of the first f c e was read by dr proto and he determined that he could return to his regular work as a bricklayer so i them so what's significant to me is that the tissue never returns to treat the dr gronow now he does go back in two thousand and ten and with this new x each but it's not for treatment and as he says when he gets there he's trying to settle this they're short periods of time but when he's when he testifies as to what happened during those times he says i work for a short period time when the work dried up i was done i was laid off so now we know that he could return a bricklayer he did return  just not for my client and what this all gets to the fact that eventually he resigns from his union because the works dried up the letter that he writes to the union president clearly laid out in my brief and he says it's for economic reasons he expresses his return to bricklaying when there's more jobs in the meantime he takes a job at the wal mart distribution center where he's making less money obviously than bricklaying but at that point with the way the economy was in those years bricklaying had dried up but he doesn't say you know because through that process and if he say didn't want to put that in the letter to you and that he really couldn't do it in the job anymore that was his cousin then the union person testified there's no need for him to say that his letter the union person did testify that he would have to put that in a letter but that union person specifically had no knowledge of mr for gore is interactions or anything that happened with this specific case when he testified generally as to you know what you do to maintain your union dues what pay scale if things of that nature but so i'm my focus is what happened in those two years and what does he tell his union and to me when he tells me he's not coming back for economic reasons that sounds to me not like a man who can't be a great player it's a man who doesn't want to go through the ups and downs of waiting for become available you know the work has dried up he's frustrated and he extended clearly in his letter that he's willing to come back to bricklaying when the jobs are there and at that point he doesn't have a medical restriction and he goes and gets another job which and you know that's advisable and it's good that he went and got another job but it's his choice to leave the bricklaying feel it's not it's not his restrictions you know he goes back to being an on he goes to being an unloader at wal mart and he's looking forty to when he applies at wal mart he again tells us why he's not a bricklayer anymore but says why did you leave bricklaying why did you leave jase was masonry he writes lack of work why did you leave basic halo's masonry lack of work think he's going to get a  and in relying on i think that's faulty and i think when you have a vote expert who says i this man can't return bricklaying because i watch someone install a fireplace in my house i think that's that's a very difficult proposition hard to accept as far as being credible evidence of the case and i understand they have the latitude to decide whether that's credible and that's not an issue but it's something that again fits with all of this is though fisher could return to b stated that he would like to  closed with saying that i think the commission's decision was against manifest weigh the evidence it would hold my client responsible position as choice to leave bricklaying and for the economic downturn that was happening at this time so i would respectfully request that sit and be reverse what's your response to them well your honor as i point out of my brief to it sort of a funny thing actually looking at the evidence to put all the eggs in dr cronus hat because those eggs and the breaking a couple years later when you have dr ronan himself it looking at his original release in two thousand and eight when he when he had a little box on the return to work for when it gets how long are these this work status for he checked on to term so it was yet to be  the permanent condition of the position of his going to be and if you during that time where he was released to the regular duty the commission properly found sort of the arbitrator he would not have been entitled any further off court benefits during that time during the period he held himself out still to happen attentional to be a bricklayer granted you only get him for short period of time for a couple employers but during that time he wasn't entitled to benefits once he finally act we asked to the reality of his objective physical restrictions that is entitle him to further benefits than a group of doctors prone to does not support their case doctor promise supports our case in fact it's not a matter of conflicting medical opinion because there's no medical opinion well then i'll believe about i mean how many does the petitioner have to get before it's believable that he actually has a valid permit restrictions should he get five or ten he's already had two both that said he had permanent restrictions again jod