return to their child and mid term the best and most efficient way possible for the employing a return to work or earning the most money possible in the latter course is done with the cost benefit analysis weighing the benefits to the employee versus the says the right of the queen this was a do it if it if it's a non invasive procedure and it used to determine the person's condition and their disability in the tent in the employee couldn't show that there's a reason why he can't period of time not as long as some of these others it's sort of a natural extension that has followed the section twelve examination that's the argument we're putting forward today reporting what about the evidence here and your argument has some we are not arguing bit but the condition is not causally connected we were fully agreed that it is in this case it's whether or not we're entitled to an f c e and the appropriateness of the vocational plan that was in place that's that's all we're really here arguing today as well as a short period of maintenance benefits when we don't believe that the employee was engaged in active folk ational rehabilitation for a time he merely drove a truck kind of a few occasions over a period of months which we don't believe bed the insurance issue had resolved by the time of the oral arguments and that the employee was driving the semi tractor therefore it was unnecessary and inappropriate to order repeat a c or more vocational plan and that the question of restrictions is moot because no evidence of better record the record at the time of the arbitration hearing the employee had not returned to work he was still being paid maintenance benefits and whether or not it's appropriate i've set forth my reasons as to why i believe never see should be ordered in this case and the course ability to do so pursuant to section twelve as far as the issue of vocational rehabilitation is decision at first it says in minix his advice than credible and that shows a leading but is not necessarily a ruling as to whether or not they'd order as planned and they also failed to say the right he's not credible but it counselor now i don't believe it's hard to tell from the commission's decision but based upon the language of the second page that they didn't necessarily affirm this portion of the arbitrator's decision over to the extent that they may have i asked did you all overturn them in that regard the commission needs to even decide this issue or be told that they have decided incorrectly there's nothing that says when the parties can't agree on a vocational counselor that the employee has the right to choose it within the if there's a disagreement i believe the provides that the two parties  submit their plans and then the commission decides who should be using which plan would best suit the petitioner or the injured worker the employees attorney asserts and is correct that there does state that the employee has a right to choose physicians but the employee is given no such right to choose within the act for the vocational rehabilitation counselor this is a matter sad story construction legislative intent one of the rules of said story constructions where statute finding a job as a truck driver if he has to there's an insurance problem on him through school trucking companies hire out of schools all the time he may have a license but if what it takes is a show he's been to retrain and he's quite capable of doing the job concurred in notifying the commission that my client mr colton head in fic obtained employment i'm stunned that this issue even be mentioned in this court but in fact i had previously prior to all arguments s communication to mr you guessed in closing a copy of my client's initial paycheck for the purpose of establishing his rights under eighty one sol given the fact that the commission is the know roger stiction i was not here to subpoena that they would include that liberation in their opinion i don't think it was necessary i don't think it's it's that reason for me personally but i wanted to set the record straight you matters this case is about control you read the newspapers you know what's going on we're not talking about anything almost to the point were to bridges individual rights and maybe some people on this panel disagree with me maybe even vehemently but the fact of the matter is personal dignity and personal rights certainly still play a role that only in this statute but in all states in this in this state when we look at the right to choose a vocational rehabilitation specialist then right is tantamount to the same as a medical provider in fish the legislature is mr you guessed he pointed out finally in two thousand and five said cleek a certified here are the credentials that they have to him and when you read this record you will find that mr  all the credentials and events of not only has he been a certified expert based upon federal law but has testified many many times and i'm sure since the early eighty's when this panel was first instructed by the supreme court you've encountered it although most of you  d where they say surveilled my client to see to appear via what he was doing what was he doing he was still in the belly health club for the purpose of trying to strengthen his squad pencil points to the detrimental activity with regard to the benefits have been eroded we are caught in a situation where the number of filings has been cutting off over the last two decades we are situated in a ned economic fight is in this case a human being to function affirmatives produce it shouldn't even be here we shouldn't be wasting your valuable time on a big thank you council with by may your honors at the time of oral argument before the commission i was asked a question based on a statement made by our own counsel for opposing counsel in oral arguments about whether or not  person could return to work merely responding to me had i entered into no stipulation which would be binding upon my client or the commission or iraq before the commission for them to render a decision we were basing our arguments on the evidence is in the record we believe there is much to be gained not only for my client but for mr colin if this court were to reverse the commission and asked him to institute a different rehabilitation plan in order a new e we're not trying to control or dominate a one suspicion was never a raise from the beginning we went along with the employee's choice of vocational counselor first we want to one with it for almost i believe it was close to eighteen months before we said this just isn't working we want to get someone else involved someone else to address it the see if they can all the petitioner i know that trying to help someone get their ged trying to help them get back to as mr millet good identifying if she rapidly accepted area i believe mr opposing counsel was referring to marion indiana when all parties agreed as well as the petitioner himself stated he was looking for jobs in illinois in the chicago metro area as well so it just really isn't that relevant to the final final thing i would address is dr score in the record his never specifically addressed restrictions he said mr colin may drive a truck with a manual transmission and that's pretty pretty emain to he never says he can only drive a truck with a manual transmission dr