exhibit was actually still with the worker's compensation commission also attached to that exhibit was a transcript of hearing from august twenty second of two thousand and eight which apparently never was transmitted to the circuit court either i need only filed a motion before this honorable of the circuit court which is where they still set and they haven't been balance yet for this court so i did want to advise this court of that i apologize that i didn't discover it earlier i never cited to p x sixteen in my brief because it's still  this level but there is certainly no mention at the circuit court anywhere that anyone had a problem with the record at that level commission a petition for reinstatement must be filed within sixty days of the petitioners receipt of the notice of case dismissal it submitted in this matter that bob has failed to file his petition for reinstatement within the sixty day jurisdiction period of time that baucus is a one case was dismissed and december sixth of two thousand and four his two thousand case was dismissed on december fifth of two thousand and five the petition for reinstatement was tendered and granted by a arbitrator andrus on march eighth of two thousand and five as well as a motion for calm consolidations the matters who then subsequently reappeared before arbitrator andrus on march seventeenth of two thousand and five where they were again on a moscow stat again the matters were separate trial on june seventh two thousand and five panix appeared by the state not the matters were dismissed as june seventh of two thousand and bought the commission then disseminated orders on june twentieth of two thousand and five notifying notifying the parties of the notices of case dismissal at ten days prior to those orders going out there also status is generated by the commission setting the matters of june seventh of two thousand and five i mean it was properly dismissed by the arbitrator it was called for trial and it certainly appeared we didn't top ten thirty in the morning and then the matter was dismissed it had previously been properly on  was really was there a confusion as had there been an alternative for their teacher by the commission setting them on september fourteenth were clearly that's not accurate because the case is right in fact on the call on september fourteenth of two also filed in the green statement the facts are correct transcript of evidence within thirty five days with an extension on the additional extension of time of thirty days further the agreed statement of facts and correct transcript of evidence must be authenticated by either the parties or the parties attorneys both requirements and necessary to protect the people in fact the supreme court has said the right to review under said section is entirely statutory and this court has helped the and if the commission's court reporter does not punish the transcript within the time set by law the other party will not claim the commission max jurisdiction to review the other traders decision so it's clear it basically says hey the court reporter to think that the transcript done on stipulation is not a political the court reporter did her job the the transcript of a hearing was in fact prepared and filed with the commission on june seventh of two thousand and five invoices  i guess a reminder invoice was also sent to july twenty fifth of two thousand and five in the interim the commission generated a return date on review that setting the matter for august tenth of two thousand and seven stating to the jurisdiction is it's absolutely a matter of jurisdiction be the question is if you have to follow that statute strictly in the statute basically says it must be done in thirty five days with the new gun for additional thirty day extension thereby also the commission to its own rules obviously has extended that a bit further i'm not sure it's an open question as to pursuant to the statute if that if that is the power that they have to do but that's the way it is done at the commission  generate return dates and review once they know that the transcripts have in fact been prepared there after they tell the parties you must write that kate the transcript by the state and i'm saying this democratic stipulation isn't a political because the transcript was fact prepared timely by the court reporter it was it was done by june seventh of two thousand and seven so ten x rightly objected to the jurisdiction at that point because why should he be authenticated transcript when there's no contradiction of section one thousand in the act which is clear it states that on a review before the commission that you cannot offer any additional evidence this is clearly additional evidence that was offered after the operation decision after proof have been closed and had not been offered a trial at specifically states that that is not a lot of commission has no powers to take that evidence to act as if it says you can't take that advocates based upon that evidence that's how we get to causation opinion is supported by now no other information in the record as to the specific as to how the injury occurred there's nothing it just said it just assumes an injury and it's unclear as to if she even knows how the injury occurred further all of the information relative to the initial documentation about the tissues injury is contained in p x sixteen so i would submit to you that her causation opinion is not valid as the fact that it's not supported by the evidence in the records and it's there's no clear find them i do say see that they say that they think he has a degenerative disc disease that's all that i found in relative to provide specific opinions as to causation they certainly indicate that he has degenerative disc disease but i've looked through the record and i didn't i didn't find positive causation opinions from either of those two doctors they didn't speak to degenerative disc disease and that was that the diagnoses and it was a surgery it was recommended to cure the signature on this transcript there's no power in the act that allows them to do that that does afford an avenue that the parties can agree it says to the commission you can designate an arbitrator doc indicate the transcript but it certainly does not allow them t there was any jurisdiction have for sixty days only up steve to the d w p without emotional resisting well i did file a motion to reinstate but also it was a slash motion to strike the order of june seventh my position was the order transcript so that any e mail made another phone calls i received response i was not sure i didn't even know that they were refusing to cooperate in the authentication of the transcript process i finally brought my motion to authenticate the transcript and to supplement the record with petitioners exhibit number sixteen which i realized when i received a copy the transcript was not part of the record we had any argument my request to file the transcript of the transcript authenticated my request to supplement the record the court determined that it was a matter of due diligence rather than jurisdiction granted the motion to have the and he refers to three years which is the date you know that he's hearing for three years which corresponds with the date of the occurrence judge back to cats and this gives a very straightforward opinion on causation she had been treating him for a number of years at the time her opinion letter was dated after she had had all the exchanges with dr hennessey and it was a trick very straightforward to pick medical opinion on causation and sort of previous settlement negotiations that taken place with the council before before i became involved so i believe the the petitioner's own testimony when coupled with the just briefly i wanted to respond relative to the reinstatement and the facts around the dismissal the matter wasn't back set for hearing on a separate status on may seventeenth two thousand and five it's above about the line which means appropriately set for trial by arbitrator andrus on june seventh of two thousand and five again carcass did not appear can exit here and the matter was appropriately dismissed by the arbitrator there was a notice setting the matter september fourteenth of two thousand and five but that in fact is dated ten days before it did dismissal notices are actually sent out it's stated june tenth of two thousand and five the dismissal notices are set out until june value to file your tax petition till what this gets to the public court in mitchell the supreme court said no it it seemed like a harsh results but it was the duty of the red against to follow their case empower them for jurisdictional reasons and  transcript so the question is is there jurisdiction pursuant to section one thousand b of the act and pursuant to the commission's own rules which say that we have the transcript must be filed on the state transcript was not filed and further there has never been an authenticated