only asked you haven't increased the sixty percent when you were before the commission what was your request i think we may have asked i may have made that statement sixty percent i ask and noting that there was doing intrusive positive for left nerve root irritation she search that was true though it was ninety seven ninety nine he had an exam which showed atrophy  that that was the basis of their opinion and their decision to increase the award to seventy five percent i mean is this essentially a battle between mind  collapsed causing him to walk like with his neck to the side and he was a truck driver's whole life never had a problem before and when you look at all that dr ruth looked at all and he cried you know do what he could comes down to the commission and it caving in their decision that they were in part facing this increase from fifty to seventy five percent on the fact that dr drew indicated that this guy might need surgery in the future and my argument at that time and today and in my brief that is pure speculation and fact at the time we tried his case mr lahman leno had not undergone another surgery all right counsel so let me just pick up on that and this is from your brief and it's somewhat of a long passage but i want to briefly africa's i think this is the framing of the issue here you write the argument is that dr drew indicated that for sure the claimant would need surgery in the future not that he may or may not however the note from dr ruth indicates quote i believe that he is eventually going to need surgery at the adjacent levels but not at this point close quote in other words dr ruth was certainly not saying that this was a medical certainty something that was going to happen to assure it was indicating what his belief or thought was about the future this is exactly the speculation and conjecture that has no business being in a decision by the commission regarding how much why is that not sufficient evidence why is that non speculative maybe we shouldn't that be considered non speculative well i disagree with that you say that it has forty but i just certain may be educated speculation but it's still speculation and the commission should not be basing their decision on that speculation this guy we know that the commission thinks it's an issue but they still have to talk about what  in the future well i disagree again respectfully right because this guy can come back again seeking additional benefits as i'm sure you are aware under the worker's comp back he they're supposed to award him benefits at the time of the hearing based on his reasonable degree of medical for isn't that what medical opinions are always couched them when doctors are asked to express an opinion about what's to happen in future i mean have you ever encountered a doctor that indicates this is what will happen in the future well sir i mean to me that is would be an extreme rarity i would agree with that now first of all as you brought up reasonably  would very rarely find a doctor testifying so the absolutes are oh i think that's true but put my i guess my point is your honor that the commission is supposed to base their decision on and that's where we give them the most is in nature instead this really isn't a problem and the second one has we can from the commission for any reason in the record medical evidence that this man will never drive again he cannot do anything other than sedentary work and to the opposite of the coin you've got one guy that says he's unwilling and you know his his evidence as a stand up real bruce restrictions since the year two thousand when he signed for the last time in two thousand and four and a claim that testified that is his condition was the same at the present when he testified as it was in two thousand talking in my mind here we're talking about back room which is a whole different issue main maybe but he's a treating doctor and he gives the guy these patients as opposed to dr von brunn who's a planetary specialist who sees this i think the i just think it's completely different from the states because that is they were taking a big it wasn't you know three cents per mile like in this case it was half the guys arnie's they were putting into the per v m category yes but that to me if it's totally different from this case where there are this is a small amount it's not have they're not affording pax's on half of what they're paying the guy this is a legitimate to meet again legitimate amount to set aside for the per v m and my point in my argument is this guy should have come in with expenses that are expenses were submitted bills and he got to redeem a three thousand one hundred seventy and thirty four cents that went on without any bills without anything anything why isn't to produce r r r a financial benefit to him without any reference to actual expenses then it's a financial gain to him and it should be included with it is the average weekly wage in this case you have to comp one where he actually should minute expenses and one  seems likely that happened based upon me the documentary evidence yes and if you get money if you don't have to submit expenses when you get the same amount of money all the time why isn't the economic name rather than a reinforcement for well it bothers but the point is in the united airlines case they said the guy should have come in and roy and expenses what his expenses were that went against the pervy m and the difference separate weekly wage because that is a benefit to him and and the point was they knew this guy in that case and this guy here too has expenses he has over the road expenses they're not reimbursing him for all of the expenses he has if you the the one thing i want to say having homage time i have left probably not a whole lot but i want to start out what i was going to start out with was the promise that mark i'm leaving never want to go back to work after you got h