commission found that that was unrealistic so to speak in light of all the factors his age no previous work experience little of way of hand eye coordination limited  it's the only medical i'm sorry it's the only expert opinion presented in the case there are circumstances where the commission can draw reasonable inferences in for example that's why i referenced the furlong case and in terms of a causal connection opinion normally you would look to have a medical opinion to establish that there's a causal relationship and certainly a case would be cleaner if he has a medical opinion and it went through are circumstances where the commission can draw an inference based are no decisions where they were able they were authorized to reach that conclusion without some sort of expert opinion accompanying it and again even if there was a permissible inference that they might try to  but they did so in ignoring the only evidence with regard to a simple building i mean you can judge credibility with regard to witnesses but if you hear of seven witnesses who testified that is that an individual suffered an accident at etc and there is no opinion or are certain witness testimony to contradict that testimony and in this circumstance the commission can only find that there was an accident that occurred and the same thing in this circumstance argument here with with respect to this in about experts testifying well that's exactly the case here there are two issues here number one is he odd lot yes he is on the odd he falls under the national t factors of odd but this is not a medical lot lot we know that so that's crossed off the list here this is a national team were all of the factors the age education prior work history all falls into consideration here and what wasn't mentioned in counsel's argument is one key critical factor here not only did mr hollingsworth meet his burden under under the valley mold  case as you as runners recall the commission relied on failing mold in determining his odd lot permanent total disability and a factor in valley home it's critical to this case also is whether or not a stable labor reach that conclusion as a trier of fact around here well i obviously agree with everything that you sad except that a stable labor market exists because there was none no testimony that was given so if i if i give in or your h why i am suggesting to you very strongly that if there was a stable labor market the the employer in this instance hired its own vocational consultant why did it stop merely at the point lot attendant as a possible alternative because that was the questioning that was posited to him and further war mr read you also know anything claimants ability to obtain such employment was reduced as a result of his lack of a ged so the one possibility just like eat crow to possibly be a parking lot attendant and without casting any stones upon any workman any man or woman that works a security guard and a parking lot attendant are probably considered the bottom of the barrel when it comes to vocational rehabilitation and job placement those are considered the menial tasks of cocaine rehabilitation when it comes to employment and they left out one other job and that's a clerk usually and at a seven eleven or some type of gas station owners are considered the three menial jobs that one is put into almost like a catch all basket when there is no other parking lot attendant so i believe you know given that testimony i should say i believe the burden we met our her and then the burden shifts to the employer we have demonstrated that i believe commission take that into consideration in making the determination that he is incapable of being void by the standard well i think the commission did take it under because they did that is it permissible for them yes i believe it's permissible because there was that but it's in the records so i think once there is evidence in the record of it i think they do need to address it i think it begun or did that would have been worse do you understand because this prior discussion of justice often said work scooting all that were just looking at the claimant ignoring that condition that was the way because it did seem to be a discussion that know when you look if you do consider it a leg yes even was performed years after the sarcoma was remote believe the timing was two thousand and two and you have said he was two thousand disagree with that right that's correct and you're not going to disagree that whether we that the meal nature of those two occupations he was talking about that they are possibly me an equal sign then come up with the conclusion on their own no stable market not if it's contrary to the only expert evidence submitted here do do we have other evidence that said there is a stable market in this case who said it well they may be at that point we're still talking about