are two cases before the court or a rise by virtue of one circuit court order confronting two decisions by the workers compensation commission i want to focus on the second of the two accidents where the opposed to on live disability they do come close to describing what it is and see either unable to do any work which ones the opinions and see corp or totally disabled to do any work or any capable of obtaining employment without seriously endangering his helmet or his life nothing from dr post testimony said that if the much more problematic now i understand the burden that i have here i have to this to score that no mention trier of fact would determine the position of cervical problems or possibly related opinion is not in the commission's adaptation of that that opinion is not offensive to the wall per se if you believe that the commission case i think briefly bisou we have two questions here one was a causal relationship opinion against the manifest way of the evidence was the finding her mental disability and the manifest where the standard into workers compensation the city of gold your case basically involved in a relation question there were some pension questions or his interpretation of the contract and that's how we're dealing here we're just dealing with you know what the law arbitrator's decision it's very lengthy it's very detail it goes through a number of different factual things that were brought before the commission and he detail specifically why he felt there was  s relationship and as we know with a manifest weight standard basically you know no rational prior fact and look at the facts that are presented and come to the same conclusion that the commission well here i think  point of factors that we can look at that support the commission's decision that a rational enquire of fact we look at and say yes the commission's decision was right the first thing that i returned to look at was the fact that after that first injury involving the back before this or the man returned to work after a lengthy period of time off work and he were doing very heavy labor for a couple of years and while he was working he had no complaints involving his neck he had no and he made these complaints immediately after the accident also an m r i was done on october twenty eighth of the neck so i would see within a short period of time after the accident doctors were concerned that this was a neck problem  rose opinion credible in the first case and there are reasons for that but in the second case you looked at all the i was the media complaints mentions of injury he also went in actually he also went in filled out a company disability report within about two weeks after the accident he's a medical doctor he's hip bone rendered medical ends and included in those opinions is an opinion as to a person's ability to perform a game while that's what doctors do they see people examine them they treat them they put restrictions on they may say the person can't do any work whatsoever happens all the time if this case was an awful lot situation where we said well you know you could work maybe you could live five pounds maybe and you know maybe fif stood all day that person could work but that's not the situation here we have proved in the commission i doubt it and the arbitrator found that this person was medically totally disabled from work how do we know that did to and it was a medical permanent total minear when the factors are or looked at take into account the claimant's injury nature of the injury itself his age his education his work history and the opinions of the treating physician into the ball in case i also cited again a medical permanent total but again the court looked at those factors they feel cause factors are a problem the question is when you take all those factors together is it clear that this person can't do civil but there are also cases that say you have to take these factors into account but you can't just you know look at just the medical aspect of it you have to look at choice thirty or all individuals is going to be different the only factors that the arbitrator and the commission looked at they didn't look at the fact that the comp we did put a man on a permanent disability pension and the reason we feel that is relevant is you know the the fact that the company put him on a permanent total disability pension in one nine hundred ninety eight i think they had their human resources man dave taylor came in and testified about that pension and the fact that two in their letters in the file they were directed it should be in the record directly to the claimant that said hey you are permanently and totally disabled you're not partially disabled you're not  disabled you are currently in totally disabled therefore you going to get nine hundred some odd dollars a month for the rest of your life they had mr taylor on the stand if it wasn't because of his condition because of his neck and mission they could have had mr taylor explain all of this is just because we don't have work in mr martin form are going to give us a pension for the rest of life so he was there he was available he could've explain what standards if the plain language of the letter that he's only totally disabled if that's not accurate they could have explained how that individual would receive that pension the other fact is the company is asking for credit they want to take night hundred dollars a month off of this man's on the total disability benefit because he is currently in totally disabled and if this pension wasn't related to his condition they couldn't get that credit it would be a while and he didn't get his pension he didn't get it when he had his background he didn't get it when he had any other of his medical problems he got it at the time he was treating for his neck when the doctors were seeing him total about the difference between a lot that the facts are here for the commission and for the support that would support the finding that rational trier of fact what find that there was  that would actually be sufficient to support the commission's decision by the way dr cohn's opinions are i can cite specifically the page numbers in this deposition