simply by stating that the plaintiff was a registered nurse a former nurse and always half the sustained at work related injury torn meniscus was off work for some time and the events which led to a lawsuit primarily occurred in the summer of two thousand and eight i would like to just briefly discuss the events of how the first trial began and ended the original complaint attempting to consolidate that claim for retaliatory discharge and retaliatory failure to recall slash model the fence counsel didn't like and i don't think the trial court like that either because once the trial began it was made clear to me when i read the statement of facts that it didn't refer to both to the retaliatory failure to recall slash we hire and frankly the reason we did that i tried to cite it in my brief the plaintiff at some point in time in the fall of two thousand acre to perform for registered nurse duties completely her reheard need problems have resolved by that time but in the summer of two thousand and eight first of all her own physician released her without restriction but o s s physician released her with a twenty pound weight and she did make if you dish it a mission which you're going to hear that term several times in this argument she did make a few dishes admission in her deposition to the effect if you go back to your job in the summer of two thousand she said not without accommodations i think or adoption maybe she used that word at asians so she made that addition admission and then what us in a position affectively where she was saying she really could not perform the job at the time she's released by her own doctor so we chose to pursue this sack of cause of action with the alternative cause of action which is failure to recall rehire and i know that distinction been made in several cases i'll get to that moment i'm not sure i think that's an appropriate the station all the web  reference to a seasonal employees versus a laid off regular employee i'm not sure that that's as case was been adequately developed and i think that this court in this opinion probably needs to develop further i don't think the panelists co ever ruled on this issue the only supreme court has never ruled on this issue and we're now dealing with twenty old case law that's really not adequately explain to us why one type of person can pursue a right recall case versus another type of person the seasonal ploy a for instance would require would have a failure to recall and then the regular employee would have failure to be rehired i think there's a dichotomy there that as a need to be there in any event we now are before th court on a very narrow issue the defendant brought two issues up in a summary judgment they said well the plaintiff as admitted she was terminated and for that reason she can't pursue the failure to recall slash to new york well she's resigned now that was covered by the point if in the response of the summary judgment by your own if you did you didn't ought reisman to say that that wasn't the factual case in the all the other evidence in the case was clearly contrary going into the fall of two thousand and eight that's just one more element of their communication about miss shelton's ongoing status as a ploy they never took her badge they never took her parking permit they are constantly talking to her about going back to the the work sharing program and she's constantly talked with them but going to other hospitals and now in new york bill can i go to st anthony's hospital and go off hospital closed out of what you have hospitals all the state of illinois i'd like a job closer to war and now i'm boy but she never refused to return to the oreo i had and that's undisputed in the record so now we get back to the question of the core granting the summary judgment on this issue of her being fired now that the may have called who will come quickly you can see in the brief we filed two consecutive complaints under oath she was fired the letter on june second says you are fired ignored the judicial admission that defense counsel made when they said it was a mistake we retracted the firing and the principal reason they retracted the firing to have a rule that if an employee was off work for a particular period of time they gave them a thirty day window they would didn't come back to work they terminated him but they didn't apply that will the people on worker's comp and the employees of the two employees i think that formulated a june second letter so we're now in a position where in my mind the courts committed for whatever reason error that's totally contrary to the law and that is they've said at the point of me to dish admission we actually made a judicial before the trial court that the yet june second firing letter terminations letter was a mistake it was retracted after june eighteenth yet we're now going to tell the board that it's a judicial mission there for the point can't proceed with her case i mean it's going full circle your honour's  that's undisputed in the record she's given that statement in her affidavit so i think that after october of two thousand need everybody forgets about this a lawsuit starts and i don't think she's ever been given any further formal statement from o s that is when they say judge we are honoring the resignation that her lawyer sent her lawyer sons a letter saying she would be yorkhill therefore she has resigned and as i said earlier she explains that he did not have money offshore to do that even even when that letter was sent your honor there is communication back and forth between the plaintiff and various o s of employees of off what job can i perform so i don't original statement by the plaintiff that the june second terminations letter stops her right to pursue a billiard recall or or rehire case that is the limit of the trial court's ruling at this point in time i would mistake they take actions to further sever the relationship uses judgment be pointed out that they then say later on in the summer of zero we know the true resignation so it's a going process between the parties and certainly of us at some point of time wants to take actions to terminate the relationship they've got an attorney in the worker's comp case his statements are quoted in the brief history new one he's making statements about the relation employment case say about the decision between a regular employee and a seasonal employee limiting their ability to pursue those these types of cases i don't think that's a proper way to pursue the state lines i think a regular police should be able to sue for either failure to recall or failure to rehire i don't think drawing lines in the definition of what those term two terms mean is a is a reasonably judicial way of handling this type of case  stationed here i feel that i've done that and the reason i feel that the brief has all the information that you need so i'm not going to just regurgitate you here today i have a brief argument prepared but if there are questions that you all have i would be happy to terminations the employment as of july twenty fifth so there is some disagreement as to what day that became final but there has never been your honor and dispute as to whether the employment was actually terminated but if we use that july twenty fifth  fit into whatever set of particular facts fits with their situation what you're looking at there is you're looking for an affirmative action on behalf of the employer ok it ended exactly it ended so once must the employer has taken an affirmative action to to sever that relationship that's when under the webb case in the way it's been explained and articulated that's when the plaintiff now falls into a retaliatory discharge case those three categories that the webb case articulates do explain that seasonal employees are for failure to rehire the the case that mr williamson is it is trying to advance our recall and then the retaliatory discharge that and so what the the phraseology is but it definitely was a trauma nation of employment they didn't want to put a black mark on on the plaintiffs record to make it seem make it look negative because it was yes i just have two points that i'd like to make this morning in the first is that i think that much of what we what we fervently is counsel isn't necessarily relevant runners because what we've got here judge should be granted summary judgment based there is absolutely disagreement as to what the specific date is there has never been any disagreement until the morning of the summary judgment hearing that this was it was a translation but i don't know that even need to look further than than what you got there in the fear if i complain if you want to you certainly have company because judge you because you took a look at that and said well you can if you want to back away from that scene if you want to file a second amended complaint can she do that and that's where these judicial missions come into play here and you can listen to mr williamson talk about who intended what what the conversations were you can listen to me say the same thing but i question why you'd want to do that because here we we've got a document that very clearly sets forth what happened in the trial court and the the positions that were taken extensions that were made over this three year period and it was written by me and it wasn't written by mr williamson it was written by a judge to begin and what he's he's communications that went on between the parties and that this extended into the late summer and fall of two thousand and eight and respectfully your honour's that simply is not supported by the record i think that if you look at the briefs and you look at the chronology and you look at the dates of each of those things that have been cited even even by plaintiff's counsel there were no there were no communications going on between these parties into the into the fall that's it's just not supported and i think if we're if we're talking about about the judicial missions and and plaintiff is trying to make an argument that that these were just an honest mistake and we want to reverse course on these i think you you look at the plaintiff's own words and in your w in the record there you have one of the letters and i believe it was attached to understood me as an exhibit she writes in order to clear up any confusion you may have was after guarding our relationship please review the following and she goes on to state that letter from her attorney saying that she had taken a new position in yorkville and that she would not be returning to work but there were still ongoing communications about what jobs the plants might be able to perform at st francis you will not find that in the record present the case because then the questions are answered and we're not interrupting our so i commend you for any unique approach that worked well for me to using a goalie and i thank you ana thank you terms are going to go the route of going through the second situation about the resignation which i understand you have a right to do for our part and rule on the app of course you could i point out you this restricted workers program is a temporary program only or workers on workers compensation employees of workers compensation who cannot return to their job at that time because of the residual effects of workers comp injury so this on one knee on one stance is not an offer ploy it's directing her to go to a temporary job and in fact your honor at this point in time she's no longer restricted she's only restricted in may and june that's the time where she couldn't lift heavy patients by the time this letter is written july sixteenth of two thousand and eight she can go back to work and supply the numerous jobs that o s i at the peoria facility because she no longer has a restriction and while we're talking about the so called admissions this is what the plaintiff is saying in her letter is attached to the complaint it doesn't appear that o s f has a necessary spec to apologize to me regarding your admitted aaron terminating me is absolutely deplorable you instead choose to order me to move back to period for a temporary job after you terminated me she knew it was a temporary job he knew it was an implacable so mr no one has in one sense clearly situation for workers comp workers who can't go back to the regular job and them wasn't her situation so i would only suggest that it would not be prudent to base this decision on something the trial court did not