this matter there are two issues that be have raves on the appeal the st issue is whether the not arise out off or was during the course of his employment and made the respond and i and the injury was not otherwise combustible the nd issue that we have raised on our appeal is the flows a remedy case reveal that mr sampson knowingly and intentionally exposed himself to a known risk in violation of established safety rules  and i receive subsequent correspondence from the respond then indicating your client reached into a machine which was still operating on trade you prairie farms dairy work roles and contrary to explicit instructions given to your client your client's actions took him beyond the scope and course of his employment so that is why my client is denying this as being a combustible claim  workers compensation commission and you know it workers compensation act will bar us from pursuing the case then a motion to dismiss was filed i filed a motion to strike the basis of the motion to strike was based in judicial stackable i indicated that plain that defendant has previously taken a position in the underlying worker's compensation case there they are indicating that not arise out off or was during the course of plaintiff's employment of the respondent and and based on that this is not a compensate all records compensation case now they cannot turn around and say no this is a relation makes the injury not to be arising out all or doing the course of the employment and that's the exact same position they have taken in the underlying worker or you can only receive a benefit from your employer in the comp case and if you have done it in the concave you can not make a recovery in the civil case there are four provisions and illinois law that say complaint as a straight up worker's compensation case and the danger of this of this proceeding is if the play is allowed to continue we're going to have juries decide workers compensation cases when the only workers compensation next says that those issues are the exclusive province of the workers compensation commission the defendant has never taken a contrary position in spite of what mr sampson's attorney says if you look at the pleadings we have never said the workers compensation that doesn't apply to this case as mere fact we had a little special about procedure the reason why the letter was written mr sampson's attorney explain why benefits were being paid is because that's a requirement of the worker's compensation at once benefits begin to be paid mr scott sands was paid for a period of time while investigated he was a temporary toys billy benefits for a period of time that every choir's employer to explain why benefits are being stopped and that's what gave rise to the letter i wrote that mr sampson's attorney and if you look requires the parties to completely for workers compensation trial the trials hill before an arbitrator of the workers compensation commission there's evidence lessons to witnesses and if you look at the request for a hearing form which is the form which frames the issues for workers compensation case number two says petitioner claims on the above day he or she sustained x ill injuries proof and that it rests on the employer here preforms areas the defendant isn't saying that the workers compensation commission should decide that question to the contrary we've appeared for trial several times that has not taken place we appeared for evidence as the record shows we appeared for a pretrial before our trigger granada in rock island illinois to discuss this very issue to get his thoughts on we have never taken the position that the workers compensation act doesn't apply i may be wrong the workers compensation commission might say to me after hearing all the evidence we don't think that mr sampson's actions were so egre as to deny him compensation under saddam's well if that's the case then they might appellate path would be through the workers compensation statutes but at no time have we taken the position that the act doesn't apply to the contrary we've been consistent with the position that this is a matter within the province exclusive province of the workers compensation commish isn't the end of the side whether or not mr sampson's actions are such that he in the case law interpret ng section to the workers compensation should be paid compensation but you can't have a system where simply because the commission says under these facts the employed doesn't get paid compensation that  allow a civil case to proceed against the employer if you do so then the exclusive provision of the worker's compensation act has no meaning and every time an employee is into work but doesn't get paid benefits then you're going to have cases where the employers will be hauled into civil courts and that's something which judge rizgar recognized and probably denied or probably did granted the motion dismissed and dismissed the point again if you look at the four corners of the p there is nothing alleged about judicial stop there is nothing alleged about the four exceptions to allow the employee to proceed with out that it is a garden variety as judge risk your correctly notes is a garden variety worker's compensation case that frames itself and i still complaint as far as if you look at it folder what we're saying here is whether mr sampson can recover or not doesn't mean that the workers compensation exclusivity doesn't apply that's the whole case unfold to says that paragraph twenty three these cases don't stand the proposition that whether an interest compensable is defined by whether there is an ability to recover benefits or a particular injury sustained by the employee whether it's whether the type of injury categorically fits within the  violation of the privacy act of an employer violating the privacy act because of biometric actions whether or not that bar by the work comp and the answer there was no because it's not the type of injury which falls in th the violation of the internal safety rules are set that the employee is denied compensation under the worker's compensation it doesn't follow that simply because you're denied compensation compensation you should then be allowed to file a civil claim and have another bite at the apple and that's not saying under saunders it says the rule is that where the violation of a rule or order of the employer takes the employee entirely out of the sp trial and a quest for a pretrial and even filed a motion for sanctions against us in the workers compensation commission that we respond to but if you look at the pleadings there is not one sentence that says the workers compensation doesn't have jurisdiction to hear this going we have never taken that jury and i frame my jury instructions baseless complaint i'm going to ask a jury well and others work on case it's it doesn't belong here and quite frankly the workers compensation commission d being paid a pretty trial being held i just would like to point out there is a no record of a free trial there is no record of at a t t payment so i would require that the court please ignore that as those do or not  cause of action for injuries that my client the same due to negligence of his employer there is nothing that states that i have to plead the exceptions up exclusive remedy i only did that when it was a own admission indicating it did not happen after i did not happen during the course of the employment it did not arise out of the course of the employment i know counsel also  egregious the nature that it can be combustible under the worker's compensation act there is no question about whether the workers compensation has jurisdiction in this case or had jurisdiction our argument our issues that we are raising today basically sums up to there is no law best days i cannot file a complaint in a work of compensation of spending there is no law best days i