man with the defendant cardinal building maintenance the clerical error in the dismissal of the first application instead of just the second application is truly ground zero for this case the procedural history of this case i factual basis for this appeal had the single event not occurred none of the events that followed would have occurred and we would likely not be here today plaintiff's attempts to correct the clerical error and have  multiple claims against the same lawyer for the same amount your honor i would point to seventy thirty ten d which we believe that that the rules does not specifically state that one application must be limited to one accident claim and one when the rules are read in conjunction that  several applications are filed that they should be consolidated parts of the first two claims were dismissed is that correct but the first the first level creation was never to be dismissed why didn't you just pursue the motion occurred we've reviewed our record we know that the for the first matter the first time it was up on january seventh clerking service reflected that the case had been returned to the status call so it we believe that it had rules only provide for the counsel for one of the prosecution after the case is three years old cracks in the you are not the time of the hearing should not have been automatically continued three months you know that and then that may have been  our offices understanding at the time but we did discover that it was dismissed and that's why the motion to reinstate was filed ok it is the basis for your claim that this was it was dismissed as a result of  not occurred none there with her stipulation crags and it was an agreed motion to dismiss because the two different law firms filed the first and second application and upon our raw forms learning that the first application had so is it fair to say that it was dismissed in error yes and then the arbitrator only consider the conduct after the dismissal in not reinstated yes that's correct rather than anything about the is set up for the dismissal of cases that are more than three years old because it should have been dismissed it was less than three years old who had it correct i believe the case was about a year old so motion we weren't sure exactly what happened it appeared that it had been in error but we simply did not state that in the motion which is required and i believe we did try to attempt to correct the deficiencies in our motion summarize the points that we want to make them you know a lot of questions that you've got to say i'm just trying to find my place now i'm sorry  be limited to one accident or claim and it read in conjunction with rule seventy thirty point ten d which specifically contemplates the filing of multiple actions against the same defendant for the same injuries one is the jurisdiction of this court to actually hear this appeal does the corps possessed the jurisdictions are position you do not explain why in a few minutes the second issue is was the decision of the commission to deny the reinstatement of the first two duplicate filings an abuse of discretion by position that it was not and again i'll explain in a few minutes why the third issue to be addressed today is whether the dismiss the advocacy of the dismissal the third to  application early application same data backs of the gets the same way he answered the justices question about whether there's any authority that you can buy or multiple applications for the same data backs against the same employer the circuit court or thirty days from the the final close trial motion decided by the circuit court so what happened in this particular case march seventeenth two thousand and eleven the circuit court issued its decision affirming all of the actions of the commission reconsideration was stricken by judge from ari eventually a decision was made regarding the motion for reconsideration that it was denied on july nineteenth two thousand and eleven the appeal to this court was not filed the up to this court as to whether you want to condone the use of a motion for reconsideration as a means to simply re arguing your case and prolonging the appeal period i would submit to you that in the yasmin case which is a first district appellate court case the court said and that's what the s record said i submit to you that obviously it's within your discretion your purview as to whether you want to condone this type of behavior or not we ask that you do not we ask that you send a message to the legal community that a motion for reconsideration is to be used for the valid purposes stated which is to raise new arguments new facts new case law which was not brought which could not have been brought to the judge during the original proceeding on the nile the petition for reinstatement the it automatically continued for three months agreed period so is there any circumstance under the commission's rules under which an application would be dismissed if it's less than three years old for the not appearing because the petitioners attorney did not appear status cases more than three years old so why does the petitioner have to comply with rules on petitions to reinstate when it's clear that to them this case was dismissed a narrative begin with because there be no other way to have a friend a proceeding is to reinstate the case if it was a simple if it was as simple as the court is outlining commission the us we the petitioner plaintiffs could have included all that in their motion to have to the petition for reinstated which they did not but motion for reinstatement was simply a generic motion says it was dismissed we want to reinstated and it didn't come even close to meeting the flurry foreseeability wire played on its face of the record building this case that application should never have been dismissed  prosecution even was dismissed for one prosecution or was it dismissed in the error is probably greed or i would submit that just too often is probably a more accurate representation of what happened but the the thing is judge we don't really know because when it came time eleven months after the dismissal they had the hearing on the reinstatement the petition had the opportunity to present evidence on this issue and the case was very subtle mysterious the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish facts which justify the restatement of the case and and number two is that it's it within the sound discretion the commission when waiting their evidence either to grant or deny the petition for reinstatement and number three back at the decision of the reasonable person agree with the commission to it now when you have an opportunity commission as the circuit court all agree i said to me to you and the commission as you know all from political different political stripes different political reading off we have agreed that this was not an abuse of discretion so i generally seven two thousand eight they set it up in here and they don't appear out of here i crossed my client money by appearing they don't appear just carefully no show no show this becomes a pattern throughout the case you appeared to argue against the decision at that point in did space the petition is defective there's four rules for a petition to be valid one is that it must be in writing to the must show state a reason why it was dismissed had a reason why it should be reinstated three it must contain the date on only requirement that it means it doesn't set or the reason why the case was dismissed or reasons why it should be reinstated it doesn't set forth that it was i'll debate that it's going to be presented it doesn't said what bet it was sort of effect is not even signed there's no proof or service on this these are simple rules i'm going to try to make something difficult to get a case which they were just saying give us the basics guys and then reinstate the kids so the answer is i don't think it would have been an abuse of discretion if the altar denied it because see i don't want to have this hearing with out them here so she continues it on a roll motion from november thirteenth two thousand and eight to give them a chance to finally come up come in and present their case and they come in and they have no explanation they choose not to mistakes happen we've stated judge don't worry about us waiting around for eleven months and naturally up at three theories so imo i submit to you that the commission's find that the petition is defective is in compliance with the after the hearing had taken place in which time the plaintiff's statute of limitations has run which is why the thirty applications have been filed on behalf of claim to be an effort to preserve her rights had plaintiff's motion to reinstate been tonight which is ultimately what did it occur and while that motion was still pending a different arbitrator dismissed the third application so essentially plaintiff the statute of limitations had run she lost out on the motion to reinstate so she was left with no more cause of action and that's all i