for permanent untold disability arising out of an occupational lung disease the commission of doubt to the opinion of dr moise in that was responding to medical expert as it was contained in his july twenty seventh two thousand and four report and specifically failed that he suffers from a severe functional disability but was able to function at a sedentary level in an environment free of significant your chance the recurrent illness may preclude work in specific  show that he was that there was really that there is no reasonable stable labor market available to him within those restrictions the commission i doubted all the findings of the arbitrator february sixteenth two thousand and five and in that report based on the restrictions that were stated in the commission's decision that he was reduced to a sedentary level gave the opinion that there was no reasonable l the arbitrator rejected the opinion of mr pensiveness on as far as i can tell only one basis and that was the other attributes belief that mr seaton real was capable of work not at the sedentary level but at the sedentary light level the government trader rejected the opinions of responsible control expert because they did not take into so what we have left is the arbitrator's award rejecting mr c from his vocational evidence because it was based on the wrong work capacity level and then the commission saying that the work capacity level that the expert base is opinion on what is the correct level opinion in two thousand and six and the arbitrator analyzed the vocational evidence in the context of the two thousand and six and two thousand and four frankly based on both of those opinions his analysis of the vocational evidence presented by the respond him did not take into account the act that mr scenery needed to be needed to avoid exposure to your attempts the commission accepted that by saying that we are forming the commission the archery season other than as we've stated here so i think the it we commission could have said we will accept the opinions we find opinions of the vocational experts have responded more credible but they didn't they said that we think the correct standard to decisions that are in conflict but i think that whatever the two decisions well we think this is are we have the commission saying there is a sedentary level and based on a sedentary level we find says the we are farming as to the other issues so we think don't address the arbitrators findings do they have to specifically addressed it to avoid a reversal you say working at a sedentary and or light duty level now there are other qualifications that dr moise puts onto that restriction which are you know basically his work environment free of significant irritants for allergens and hassen to be able to be limited to occasional walking this basically placed them at the center light level but it's still evidence that he is capable of forming some type of work release his some skills of work the next step is that the commission look again here's why i think opposing counsel's argument has a keystone position which is that the commission modified the arbitrator's decision to say that there is a specific finding honest those who work which is center level i don't think that the commission did that the commission's decision specifically says that they are adopting affirming unless modified as they did below and they want to cite some of the evidence the record including dr moistens two thousand and four are accepting in affirming the arbitrator's decision as to those facts that they don't specify in your decision and i do believe that the sitting there that you are has read he cites dr against that i think is a find and it's obviously takes the place of the of the finding of the arbitrator the only thing the reason the arbitrator states that he rejected mr paine save his opinion is that it was based on a sedentary work in and i think that an analogy can be drawn in this is the analogy that i think applies is that if it was a defense there that the petitioner was not exposed to an irritant and the arb and otherwise affirms the arbitrator that then the findings that are made compel the conclusion that there was an exposure