participants fully functioning members of this court on all cases for the furred this means you will have the benefit of the record oral argument they have had the benefit of all your briton briefs and they will also have the benefit of a shared know please call the first case of the morning that there was a lack of cause and connection but i would say to him with judicial notice your honor asked you to take judicial notice of the stipulation sheet which is the appendix twenty one in page one of the appendix on the stipulation she responded actually agreed that there was a cause of connection there was a binding stipulation before the hearing began that causal connection was not an issue in dispute there may be hard for you at the arbitrator found to be an issue there was no  correct but i think you could take judicial notice of the binding stipulation and baby kate to find it on causal connection as it was actually not an issue that was presented by the parties their loyalties issue it was an issue presented in evidence was issued i believe the arbitrator tried to shoehorn in his finding to deny the first claim which was not appealed as a basis for finally have caused ation for the second injury which was a completely different accident date july twenty first two thousand and eight and again the party stipulation she conceded causal connection the matter was tried and the issue that was before the court was whether mr pryor was injured in the course of his employment the table which i believe remains the issue that is before you and that the anybody by the arbitrator or the commission concerning causal connection should be vacated because the party stipulated that causation was not an issue at the time of the hearing and again i would say to an x twenty one where you can see that it's marked that there was not an issue in dispute with regards to in the course of employment the primary argument is one guided by a bra the general rule is coming and going to work you're not in the course of your employment but there are recognised exceptions and i want to be very specific the only exception that we think that applies here is the travelling employee exception you are a travelling employee underbelly of off if your job duties take you away from your employer's premises this gentleman was a over the road truck driver he was always in his truck some nights he spent over the road and overnight in a hotel and i believe cast since concedes that he was a traveling employee urban and the two other cases that i cited complete vending and not checked this court has determined that you are in the course of employment as a traveling employee from the moment that you leave your home and that coverage continues until the moment you get back home he has already left his house with the suitcase well i mean that kind of general language has been used in some cases but those are cases where the person leaves home if any st bill for example you have a plumber who has a company villian and he goes out gets in the bin goes to his first work site but your client had to drive to your to get his tractor trailer to commence his work that is travel for work when she felt they also said that she had not fallen on the employer's premises and they also said that she had not fallen at a place where she was to do her clean yeah i say were she felt g going out to get into the van to go to the job to clean so you have to like a plumber as a company that sort of writer stand but my point your honor would be that when he left his home he doesn't become a traveling yard he was already travelling in what was when he bought i wouldn't start when he gets to the yard because no marks it says that she didn't after she hadn't even left her property and she was employer and i did the best that i could in my brief to argue that i don't think that the exception that i'm arguing for which of the traveling employee exception i don't think ownership of the vehicle matters to a determination as to whether they're traveling employees or whether they're in the course i think the complete vending tasing said that there were several exceptions to the coming and going world and one of them was when the employer provides the means of transportation and the injured worker is injured during a time after the means of transportation has been provided and in the further into the employer's business that itself can be its own exception to the coming and going to rule  argument is it doesn't matter that the personal be at all where the suitcase was placed was not known by the employer i think he was a traveling employee by virtue of his job duties and that coverage began from the moment he left his house and it's not material to the traveling employee exception that he did not own this vehicle i only can see that if you find as a group that there is some significance to the ownership of that v then you would have a basis for saying that he's not in the course of his employment by in these cases that i cited i don't think that the court had to find that the call was owned by the injured worker in order to determine that he or she was a traveling employee and so i think it's it's it's certainly a distinction no one has alleged that the vehicle involved here was owned by the employer it was his personal v and he had left his home and it's our position that as a traveling employee he was covered door to door and that ownership of the vehicle is not material to the issue of whether he was a traveling employee if he's a traveling point then the task is reasonableness of the conduct in foreseeability to the employer which i argued in my brief it would certainly be reasonable for someone who's going to stay overnight to pack a suitcase and put it in his viet cong and i think it's further for seeable to the employer who provided him with a list of powerful to pick from that they could first see that he would load a suitcase into his vehicle before driving to the yard and getting his truck so it's our position that if he is a traveling employee coverage is door to door box and urban say they i think know my chick says bad because she hadn't even gotten into the vehicle to begin her travel when she fall off and the i did you see stat she hadn't gotten into her vehicle and that's why we don't think she was in the course of employment but this honorable court said that's not right that's the task the test is whether she was a traveling employee get her duties take her away from her employer's premises and it didn't matter that she hadn't  begun travel for work it didn't matter that she didn't follow it the employer's premises it didn't matter that she didn't fall at the place where she was going to do the work and i think those distinctions apply here it shouldn't matter that he hadn't gotten to the yard it shouldn't matter that he hadn't gotten into his semi it shouldn't matter that he wasn't on the road when the accident occurred if he's a traveling employee what should matter is that it was a door to door and he had left his house and i think he's covered and i don't think ownership of the vehicle is a factor in the traveling employee exception i'm not advocating that other exceptions to the coming and going rule may apply because if they do that's not my that an assumption that that part of the commission's decision should be off the table is there any case law or statutory law that supports the proposition that in a request for a hearing where the parties are narrowing the issues for the arbitrator that that constitutes a binding stipulation as between the parties that's the first one and secondly as to whether or not that  the arbitrator in the commission and precludes them from considering issues that the parties deem may be sound all that are off the table because when you do simply look at the request for hearing it doesn't the related to what happened to him on july twenty first two thousand and eight and so there should not have been finding made by the arbitrator or the commission it was the understanding of the pardons that the sole issue was the accident or writing out cases were consolidated and there were two hearings on the same day at the same time and the arbitrator issued two distinct rulings only an appeal was taken of the ruling from july twenty first two thousand and eight and i think the arbitrator tried to shoehorn his rationale for denying the case that was not a deal which involved a low back as an explanation for his finding in the two thousand and eight july twenty first accident but again the also you may respond respondent yes since transport the travelling employee concept is expanded greatly over the years but there has to be some limits in this  case i believe my strongest argument is to ask you if you could estimate how many truck drivers are in the state of illinois that drive for pepsi seven up u p s that acts almost all of these drivers drive their personal vehicles to the terminal whatever they pick up their vehicle and they deliver their product but opposing counsel saying yes that's true i'm just going to hurt the same but there between a factory worker driving to the factory and he's not covered to and from work and the difference between this truck driver all of those thousands of truck drivers driving their personal vehicles to to prepare for that overnight trip and so they are in for that it's of their employer's venture at that point and it seems well you would that if you're going to go that far then when he packed his home that seems to be a point we're at now in case it doesn't well all of those cases every one of those cases involve i've got a couple notes on the number of the cases here pretty complete bending they're all vehicles that are there twenty four hours they drive them to and from work that's completely different if if if this gentleman took his eighteen wheeler home with them we'd have a different story but you  was correct neither one of those helps the petitioner in this case we've been talking about distinctions to point the factual distinctions between this case and on our side what do you think  legal issue absolutely could go either way but i don't see how it either way it could go for the petitioner it's just so if the facts change then he drives to the terminal his employers terminal their good of his car and goes behind the gate i assume where the trackers are and he's climbing into the tractor and taking his case with them and putting them back just two points on revival and again thank you for your time this morning appendix from page twenty two which was referenced by my colleague mister a number thirteen that does say other issues quote not listed above and so you're not supposed to list items in thirteen if there are an address specifically and so i go back to a twenty one number four and it's marked petitioner and responded agree that calls a connection is not an issue so i don't think you can i think i guess what i'm trying to say is the more specific it's at least in the system that yeah to to assume somebody just charitably read i would say the more specific should override the general in paragraph thirteen it's a poster address issues that are not listed in the stipulation before paragraph thirteen so how i do thing one to read number thirteen what what what what does that mean other issues and then it says causal not previously been addressed causal connection is listed there but specifically in paragraph four they agree that causal connection is not of this view but it's not clear i mean i would say yes there's probably a point to be made that it's in  but i would say that the more specific should override the general and the specific stipulation regarding causal connection is mark that the responded agrees and then on the other point was just to address venture newberg two things that was just a case about whether the petitioner claim it was a travelling employee and of course the supreme court found that he was not my reply brief says i don't think venture applies to our appeal because gas is already concedes he's a traveling employee and so i don't think that the decision in venture waters down or changes the outcome or gives any additional guidance to this court i think no magic stands for its holding and i don't think it's affected adventure i think venture defines when someone can be considered a travelling employee but that's not a dispute that's before this court with regards to mr price what it is when do they become there are more than one point  about that might be but what i remember about venture for instance is they needed they thought it was significant the supreme court betting wasn't a permanent employee of gaffing and that he was temporary mr pryor would work seven years for this employer i just think if we looked at the factors that were identified in venture all of those would tell us that he's a traveling employee but the respondent has already agreed to that so i just think that to justice here is the point i just don't think venture newberg changes in th