commission paired and then we're also cross heavily on the penalties for which we are that commission was correct i think there was no penalties to be awarded the first issue that we have is the arbitrator in the second records for following that relapse those are related to the most mainly for the lumbar spine when he goes back into the hospital following his return to work or some more so for the lumbar the cervical condition comes about the main service condition comes not does not come about until two thousand and not until july twenty fourth two thousand and nine and i think in his reliance on the prior decision if you look at the prior decision it only minor cervical strain that likely would have you know related but it resolved and therefore therefore it you know it wasn't his current condition of ill being i mean council you know it is brief argues that it's the law of the case and i think that the arbitrator it appears that the arbitrator relied on the arbitrator in the second fight and i don't and it's not correct based on the wire case that you're bound as to cause of connection in a subsequent  you're not you're not bound by the causal connection for periods pass the original nineteen you certainly are for the period of two decision you original nineteen you don't get to retry  original a few no no and i think that and i think that that's the combats the will of the claimants reliance on these very case mounts and frankly i think that was more so the case in that in that case therefore they're then that that case that was stricken and said that that was law the case and you cannot challenge in the wider case there was different and there was a different injuries and there was progression of injuries and such as this case there's progression  the issue that we have with the commission decision for the second case is that it just it doesn't appear from the record that the arbitrator or the commission specifically slaty his opinion was what it was and he related it back to the first condition but i don't read it is on in that regard had already been you if you also look at the decision of the arbitrator and and on eight on august tenth two thousand and nine the records that relate to a cervical spine which was mainly the condition that was across the board in the second he was not the examiner at that time there was a different examiner but that's what the opinion was of the doctor at that time that was his opinion you know he made an opinion that the current condition and he didn't require the medical treatment or the you know last  and so even assuming that the commission the commission's decision there was no law of case argument that council of profit is brief zooming that the secondly there's an issue with regard to temporary told disability benefits the responded appellant argues that the award of temporary told disability benefits was against argument some points that we had made in our brief relate to the fact that there was a labor market survey by a two claimant in two thousand and ten there was no evidence of any search for employment or looking issue now whereas in that wire denise it was a thing where the the terror that developed was about a year and a half after the counsel had or that the respondents putting forward was about issues from prior to that first hearing it as such there was no basis for them to make that argument based on the law that should be noted with regard to this any job search mr ghassan indicated that he did the job search based upon financial desperation but it should be noted that a doctor to phillips did have him completely off work at a certain point as well so that's and with just the kind of emphasize conduct in this case by respondents counsel i did put forth a timeline in my proof that i think is very hopeful folks want to go through that work axing question was bad faith i'm saying that to the day you go august tenth two thousand died yet the only thing wrong with saline he should pinion was the period of time from june until august that's the only thing that you've got a did have the surveillance at that particular there's a lot of the in january of two thousand and eleven in which there was a sort of valence and it's my argument that there was no reasonable basis to thank you all for your time well in terms of zero two because it was up to the point of the first independent first arbitration hearing anything subsequent to that not examine him before the first before his examination in two thousand well ok that seems right but and so i think in terms of the issue as to causation i think that it was reasonable to rely on in june twenty sixth the wait and based on their you refused to pay benefits from august tenth which is the detour to pay benefits to when you surveillance that was taken out of the claims and so there that surveillance was also contained within its use as to you know t t t benefits as well as medical benefits early subject that was back sent to september of two thousand and ten that was a record for you with the pain management specialist in terms of the so i think it was reasonable in this