commission as an administrative agency has the authority to act beyond its specific grant of authority in the legislative in the afternoon and the rule making  dismissal took place in this instance there was clearly an arbitration hearing that took place as well as an arbitration on decision issues order dismissing the claim from want to prosecution but more also indicating the case was me respond in the course of your discussion tell us why the discussion between yourselves and counsel to me the threshold question really is the appeal bond that's i guess what i would like to discuss with your honor's because in a sense i mean the commission found that there was jurisdiction that made that specific findings so how if the commission makes that finding does that ever get in front of you to even decide whether they had jurisdiction unless a timely correct appeal is filed because if he had never reason that this i noticed the appeal bond being an issue i didn't look at it from the from the commission to the circuit court so we argued the case on the substantive merits of the circuit court counsel filed some kind of motion about an appeal bond  court which to me was irregular and i didn't quite understand why it was being filed so i thought well i'm going to go look at the circuit court record and see what happened with that original bond and that's when i discovered that the original bond did not have a surety the original bond didn't even it wasn't even executed by the person that said he had authority to do so until it was filed fifty days after the deadline and they did that to wreck the deficiency that is quite it denied it was at that point even once the gentleman that had authority to execute the bond executed it it was two days after the twenty day deadline and still failed to have the surety so i don't know why the circuit court when they had an issue of the summons they did i noticed after the fact once we got you know to this point but i respectfully i think that's where this case does begin and then because the commission's decision and everything else that happened on a lower level doesn't make any difference if this court doesn't have the jurisdiction to begin with to hear circuit court to hear the case because clearly the notice of appeal in this case was filed within time of the final order entered by the circuit court the question was whether the circuit  always have jurisdiction to determine that but let's back up one step let's assume that a proper bond was filed we would still have jurisdiction to determine whether the commission because of course as this court has the right to figure jurisdiction it any point along the way it's just you wouldn't even get that question before you today and less there was a proper appeal of the commission decision to begin with so of course you have the jurisdiction to do all that is pointing out because there was the appropriate people by and it doesn't just as i said magically appear here you have to get here through certain steps well let's assume that was an appropriate appeal by again the one thing that was never mentioned any of this in the brief or argument this morning was the standard review in this case that i pointed out when the commission is interpret its own rules it's the courts and have to follow it but the commission is given deference and unless it's clearly erroneous is not a new you know how the world works if we want to  correct it sooner well in and as a in an additional argument that was not in the brief and it's interesting the circuit court judge as you know in civil court if i do something like that and i dismiss a case i go ahead and enter an order which in this case would be t order that in effect x is the reinstatement in and of itself it declared just a point of fact the the be calling joliet was actually the fourteen so the case had been tried two days and in the prior year in two thousand  was february fourteenth and i allege in the record that i was there but that it's not really no great import the case was finished at trial on the sixteenth i mean well before the dismissal ever went out so the case was tried finished on the sixteenth proofs were closed and then later that month the arbitrator sends this document out which as you point out was internally inconsistent scratches out says case tried to get the d w p and that's how we end up at this point traitors a decision i appreciate your point on the standard of review i guess that this would use that standard review though in the sense to look at the commission's decision and say is it clearly erroneous arbitrary and unreasonable for the commission to say they prosecuted kates to the full extent under the work compact should be dismissed for a lot of prosecution i think that offends the logic of just about anybody and i think the commission was reasonable in the way to approach this case and this is this issue has been going on for a long time petitioner tried to case and won the original permanent disability almost six years ago now and after a couple up and downs from the commission back the arbitrator and up to your honor's the day here we are finally on this procedural issue can you tell me on what normally comes time of the commission if you try a case and the only thing you're doing is waiting for the decision you know the case usually and till the decision is issued the case traditionally still shows up on the arbitrator's that is all and there arbitrators get pressure to you know to know what's going on with their above line and the like cases that are over three years old so we case not necessarily not until the decision is issued because that in this case was tried over a three day span over multiple months i mean so the trial that started counsel participated in the whole process got to the end close proofs and then this in remind the arbitrator as such you know you already tried this case and you know my representation when we were arguing this in front of the commission in my statement to the commission was well i was there and i wrote it in the e mail which we argued about whether it was is what i represented as a at the time i call counsel's office and asked for the e mail address did not get over to par and think that's as it was on the liberal counsel has sent said that well that really wasn't my email address so it and it's not exactly  we made the attempt and if you look at the e mail at the bottom it says c c attorney mark reiter there was no attempt at x party communications and even if you did all that being considered if we're looking at the specific issue before you today on the  commission's decision was reasonable so on that basis we do think the commission should be upheld that founders stiction in this case and that issue if you were decide against an appeal bond but as you said apparently we're all in agreement that there was presumed that it's going to go to trial unless you file a motion for continuous forbid because i agreed and i don't