decision the earth that the decision of the on my workers compensation commission on remains which awarded mr williams twenty five percent man as a whole of a period of t d d and a specific amount of medical bills be overturned and in a word of a not lack permanent total disability be entered on his behalf and that's the relief that i'm seeking a sworn in i think that the facts strongly support the the air logical see the way we handle that at the circuit court level as we address the procedural issues because of the difference in the standard of review and the logical flow i want tell us why you filed all the necessary paperwork i did and  you could file the attorney on behalf of the appealing party such as myself in this case could have filed an affidavit or he could supply a he or she could supply proof to the clerk that there was a notice of intent to was filed a letter signed by myself of my notice of intent to commence the circuit court review so i feel i sent a letter to your simple notice of commitment or commencement clerk of the commission and likewise i sent a letter with that was timely within the twenty days to the clerk of the south county of notice of my commitment and so my argument that laid out in the br and as well as my reply brief is that that constitutes proof so it's not an affidavit but it's a letter signed by myself filed with the lasalle county circuit court within twenty days of the notice of commencement and the payable i think was a thirty five dollars fee for using a letter from you it was sworn and sworn just the informal it's it's a letter from me on my letter had signed by myself i'm going to tourney i'm an officer of the court i cited supreme court rule one hundred and thirty seven which requires me as an officer of the court and a signature of an attorney has legal effect under supreme court rule one hundred and thirty seven is one of the arguments that i  set forth as well as the ruling in the brief that i'm an officer of the court if i clearly if i would have had and i guess my contrary argument just to play devil's advocate if i would have sent a letter to the clerk is in that's how they would communicate with the court is by filing pleadings motions letters in this case i was required to communicate with the clerk if i would have made a false statement to the clerk then obviously that letter would have some legal effect against me personally so my contrary argument proof correct and proof is not defined in one thousand now and so when i was reviewing the briefs and we've this case been going on for a long time and we've really written these read several times it occurred to me over the weekend  that that i satisfy the requirement of the statute of that i can you provide proof to the clerk that i filed my nose and intent to proceed with circuit court review at the commission or i can file an affidavit so i think the question is degree so affidavit clearly as we as attorneys and judges can is a form of proof so the legislat a law that is there and you can buy a letter filed with the clerk is his name i don't believe that there's a case directly on that point i don't but i could not locate any case the closest and most near follow the was correct that it was a vision correct cracked and so i was thinking of that through my brain you know just you know i have three daughters and they're teenagers and all about how we communicate so the legislator didn't define how or in what manner to provide proof to the clerk just playing devil's advocate could i drive by the courthouse and yell out to the clerk hey i filed one document with the commission i was that doesn't sound reasonable but it could be proved right but i could a symptom a tweet like our president does in now is considered to be an official i could've got on their facebook page read the real question is what is reasonable and what is customary so the statute says to communicate with the clerk i think it's reasonable and it's customary to send a formal letter snail mail by myself an officer of the corps to notify them for twenty five years i just took my twenty five your heart this couple weeks ago have used that same form for years now in light of the conway case i have altered our internal procedure and i think rightfully so just so it's more clear you know but clearly my point on the reason the proof is the legislation legislators clearly contemplated something other than just an affidavit or otherwise they would when you get the documents from the commission one impracticality because i practice downstate it is difficult to get those without sending a clerk all the way up to chicago i know a lot of the chicago firms and i  instead of just you know honestly it was a matter of course that we've always use its practitioners a letter to the clerk and so the conway case and hindsight monday morning quarterbacking you  looking i just don't i want to think it's not i suppose it's maybe way raising the question but i i don't have a memory one way or the other honestly but i guess my final argument on is the legislator put the one he had no significant transferable skills he had a high school education get permanent work restrictions that were agreed to by all physicians and in that sea he was no longer according to the vocational expert by virtue of his age to qualify for job retraining under the vocational rules the employer in this case was once he reached maximum medical improvement walked him off the job they were accounting  e which is the date that i believe you should be have them should have been found to be permanently totally disabled we requested assistance we filed the demand for vocational rehabilitation the employer refused any efforts and any help the petitioner has no specific skills he had restrictions of no lifting greater than thirty pounds no exposure to buy abrasion which was the main issue for him in the rock quarry and no shuffling he could not return to his prior occupation as the commission felt that the twenty five percent loss of useable man for fusion work no accommodation is very small in my opinion he had two hundred responsible case no expert in their labor market survey said were available so he took the list of jobs that the employer's expert said were available and applied and was turned down for all of the use plain where the commission made a finding that the job search before i got permission from my client to do that or even ask for permission my client to do that i sent an attorney to the less l county courthouse in order to read the entire record for any indication that the proof of notice of intent was filed the  fact that i filed the notice of intent with the circuit court clerk on the date that my appeal was filed so that the practice of the circuit court was to accept those filings the notice of intent was substituted for the old  check register or payment for the record in the pursuit of the record on appeal the only thing the legislature changed in nineteen in two thousand and thirteen july of two thousand and thirteen was substituting the word notice of intent for can certify pleadings says except for requirements of rules and or statute so in this situation with the specific wording of the statute requiring the don't know what letter he is talking about he did indicate in the i don't have a record of anything a letter to the circuit court he we've got a notice of request for issuance of summons in which he indicated he had filed a notice vision or what did that letter say i don't believe that letter exists judge allen found that he did not make any filing of the prose and i don't have that letter and i don't think that letter is anywhere in what he's identified as exhibit four a in his a tick tick in his petition is an alleged attachment of the notice of appeal that i don't was was not in the clerk's office when my associate went through the entire file with no record of the docket statement having filed that oh let's forget the docket station the let's go to the file and then if the record is before you and there's a one thousand pages and i don't have any letter in there if there was a letter in there indicating that he had provided the proof i probably wouldn't filed the motion but i don't have anybody around his letterhead to the clerk's office within the twenty days indicating that he served them with a copy of the notice of proof or actually strictly enforced that even though there was no indication of any arm or leg a failure of issue it's a summons both of those appeals were dismissed i've been doing workers comp for thirty four years and in review review of a minister of agency is supposed to be strictly complied with the statutes supposed to be strictly complied with if we lower the standards rather than raise the standards you will have more cases coming up that are not right for review you'll have more disputes the purpose of this that made with somebody on notice but the purpose of this is not to put the burden on the circuit court to check with the commission on this and john justice what's the point you know it's not  rule or statute i don't think if we lowered the standards we will get lower compliance with the standards and if we say the rule of affidavit the attorney is putting somebody i notice do we have to re i think there'd be a two justices dissent if that's probably right that i can't say the legislature the legislature did amend it within that statute that's the only case they paid down in that period of time it did make it easier and put all practitioners from the very top of the state down to the bottom a state and they will footing in terms of get a certain beneficial that change correct made it much easier to comply with it is a technicality and i believe it would be worthwhile for the practice even though it is a technicality to enforce the statute even if we get beyond that statute in this instance our review is the st decision of the commission and their quest for a reversal of the hired doctor saying i request in the end it's hard to believe that we're up here nine years eight years and this fellow's date of accident it was an emergency hearing but in the worker's compensation setting when an emergency hearing is filed i'd have fifteen days complete records of doctors saying regarding the manifestation of the fellow's complaints the doctor saying modified his opinion judge pedal on the record told me that that was suspicious but suspicions would need to be addressed by petitioners counsel cross examination of the doctor saying concerning the modification for the jail to be in dr good's havel substituted his opinion for that of the commission judge pedal and the record indicated he's not going he's going to remain  case and ordered the commission to find accident and order the commission to find a causal connection because he wasn't going to allow them a nd bite of the apple judge hebel told me on the record that it's clear that this fellow had a cervical the fact that this man did not have cervical complaints in between may th two thousand and eleven until aug th two thousand and eleven and they found that de lay and complaints justified at the nih look benefits of the cervical spine specifically denied all of that i cross examined the petitioner concerning his complaints as they follow the alleged acts in a may th two thousand and eleven and even cross with me and indicated i don't testify in a different area from what his attorney presented to the commission doctors indirectly perform the surgery and eventually on the morning of his deposition testified to an accident may th two thousand and eleven being  causative of the cervical spine condition had never been told about the may th two thousand and eleven accident after not until the st that the day of his deposition the morning was deposition the petitioner had related all of his complaints t thank you again your honour's just with respect to the diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder i think mr kale is probably the diagnostician on that and that's really argument i don't believe that that's in the record at all  occurred then there was an aggravation of a preexisting condition so the initial medical providers in this case did not do a very good job of taking clear histories in terms of the two separate accidents or incidents as the case developed and as the physicians were deposed it was clear in the testimony that it was one of the accidents not the other that was causative in this case the complaints were consistent however point of clarification just so we're clear on the terms deed in mr kato explain this probably better than i did in terms of the procedural forms that the commission uses they use a form now entitled notice of inten my letter or pleading and i don't have those but they're attached to i believe to my briefs were filed to rigidly in the circuit the original circuit court review and it's the same form that i use in format and march clarifications because mr kagan on ourselves had reviews the decisions for views going back and forth in the clerk was setting up multiple files and we were getting them consolidated so that's one reason why you'll see that same document and i have in my notes and i think judge holder it's asked in my notes suggested i get i don't have the pleading that i wrote the plaintiff lawrence williams has filed his notice of intent to file with review with the illinois workers workers yes sation that's the document that that is what you're calling your notice o kind of a that's what i was trying to clarify because the the commission now uses a form right all the intent to file in the circuit court so that's why we're we're slightly mixing language my words were the same words that i describe it to you as being on the latter it's just this is more presents itself as a pleading i don't think that there's any it's a formal statement to the south county clerk as proof