case has committed legal error in the method of determining that my client should have been awarded ten percent disability of each upper extremity the little error lies with the court below and the benefit review board equating impairment that is produced by a doctor's rating under the american medical association's guides to the evaluation of permanent disability with loss of use as it is used in the act to we are not asking for a loss or wage earning capacity in this case rather in fact my client readily admits that he has made more money then he was making before the injury gilchrist deals guys the impairment rating use is in its own definitions non industrial factors to come out with impairment ratings in addition to what the doctors fin as the ability to take care of oneself the ability to sit and stay and the ability to take care of oneself in terms of their bodily functions the a m a guides in their first chapter says that they do not use industrial factors to come to their impairment reading but he appears not to be impaired because he's making more money now than he was before i were talking about future potential but what are you going to get  runs and what's your bottom line the bottom line is that our client well our clients job in terms of how it's performed is a factor that should be considered and understanding how affected he is by the disability we're not saying that he loses money as a result of this in terms of wage was what we're saying is that when he does his job it should be considered what kind of job he has so hard we counsel so if we had evidence of technological advancement and it would be easier for him to do his job notwithstanding his industrial impairment then he should get a lessened amount of industrial doing is we are saying that if we only if we used the a m a guys this is a very narrow concept we are saying that only if you use the game make ice then you must follow the rules that the guides tell you to not our proposition our proposition is that the court may use any any reasonable method of coming to the calculation what we're saying your honor is that if they use the guy's right then it would be nonsensical to not ask you a question i'm sorry i'm not making myself clear what i'm saying is that if you used to make guys if you wanted to fall if you will like to do that if the fact finder likes to do that if you don't use them the way th sense to use them then how can they be used and the a m a i am very well they are they are guides they are should be used as a method of calculation the a m a says that you are says the doctor you're supposed to measure this you're supposed to measure that then it says that we do not stand for the proposition that this measures industrial loss of use it's ten we have figured into the calculation only non industrial use what i'm trying to do is bridge the gap between the non industrial was of use and the last in the industrial must of use that art act tells us we must come to get to where section one nine hundred wants us to go we must translate from non industrial loss of use to industrial loss of use and that means we need to see to consider industrial factors which the guys you know of going from non industrial loss of use or proportion to industrial use because he would not consider the industrial factors that should not be barred gilchrist case the also the physical factors of how you do your job they're not economic factors i don't know why that those were considered to be economic factors just how you do your job how you use the motions of your hands and your legs ar physical factors that's what the judge were asking the judge to do right now so you've exceeded your time we will get you one minute for me please the court safe here on behalf of the respondent green terminals corporation i want to take my argument to make to address to brief issues the administrative law judge says judges credibility determination was essentially dispositive on this entire preclude the consideration of economic effects and assigning the disability for a schedule injury that's exactly what we have you here economic effect with what counsel said was just fuel factors i noticed in his argument he didn't  d to say what actual factors were including to adjust for and during the trial he actually used age occupation as the two means by which you were to adjust or change transfer from to section one point eight of the a m a guys each administrative or legal system that bases disability ratings on permanent impairment defines its own process of converting impairment ratings into a disability ratin the in excess of seventy five years since the actual longshore and harbor workers compensation act was passed it had more than ample opportunity to mandate that the guides be used if they wish to in fact the opposite to into specific situations and for only recognize or maybe some in congress results with this but fundamentally when the congress the stablished is worker's compensation system they want to do it with a degree of pretty predictability for both the employer and the employee and during that decision in one nine hundred eighty they invited think the quotation is the purpose of the statute is the compensate for lost wage earning capacity schedules are set up not to put a price on certain parts of the body but suniel rate and otherwise intolerable administrative burden by providing a certain and easily disabilities in order to allow you to do that now that hundred page book is very very detailed as to how used what other factors you take into consideration and how do you suppose actually make make that translation if the congress wanted to twenty seven and what was felt to be at that time one of the better workers compensation systems and if you look at the case history as well as legislative intent of the new york statute and then also the legislative intent of this statute i think intent of the claimant the injured worker to raise the fact that they were under conference they did in their wages because of the injuries that clearly is economic factors in this particular in our case and in cases under the guise amichai what we are what we are contending is that the factors that need to be looked at are not economic factors need not be classified as economic factors they are factors that include how someone does their job too to do exactly what the guides tell us to do and that is to consider the factors so sorry everyone agrees i believe with this act that this ability is an economic concept there's no way of getting around and that both applies to scheduled and on schedule injury now so once everything in would mean that schedule has no meaning whatsoever the bottom line is you want the industrial back to be given a monetary that that's the bottom line we want your honor what we were determined to stop a trend in terms of election of either one of the other nine schedule or scheduled awards we are not doing that here pepco said that the board was starting to get