favor you argue look they stand before you like the cro magnon man without i stand before you today and hopefully will convince you t compliance with the rules that the only way now comes the deviation to borrow a phrase from an earlier case lawyer doesn't show up claimant doesn't show up what happened petition for fees then motion is granted by the arbitrator and continued severely until the resolution of the case and the interesting twist in this commission affirming arbitrator pilar's that niall of the petition to reinstate i'm aware that there was a flaw or an objection raised either by the court when one pleads jurisdiction but as this court and other courts in the state of said moving us supreme court there are multiple instances where the extension of the elasticities of the requirements to jurisdiction on the court has been granted i have no immediate citations to speak to that but i think you have heard sufficient numbers of arguments over the years to bite based upon judicial notice know that that's true mark so you see you're being you're being absolutely right but there but again let's go back to the purpose why were here white each of this is present this claim that he has a legitimate injury a significant enough one where they negotiated the settlement and everything was hunky dory because quite candidly granted if this settlement had been consummated that then dismissal for one the prosecution would have been dealt with injury and for reasons beyond her control we're here today faced with the dismissed case and if vale pilar had said in her way to deliver benefits what would be the prejudiced the respondent here what would be the downside now when it least at the minimum you are aware that there was a significant offer me forty five percent that's all i'm asking thank you for question there are two specific things that are missing from the record that were statutory requirements pursuant to section one thousand apps that the plaintiffs fail to file one of those was the written request for the stamp on what is in the record or two documents one of them is the summons itself with no pay the originally no case number added to it file stamped october sixteenth two thousand and seven  alleges a certificate of mailing on october twelfth two thousand and seven the second document that was filed timely so to speak was a certificate of mailing that didn't have a case number attached to it as well i'm sorry to correct but i know that's what both sides were arguing in the circuit court and i don't know where the request for summons was when those arguments were all going on in the circuit court but there is in the record a request for  only as the no fee drop box october sixteenth be found on it when it's there and having said that what is still also missing and in a timely fashion was exhibition of attorney can finally affidavits stating all of the time when it was mailed they just don't have the receipt back a copy of the check at cetera which would satisfy that requirement that's not here there's no affidavit by the plaintiff for the attorney acknowledging that document being exhibited timely to a clerk of the court the actual receipt itself could not have been filed timely because it's clearly dated october nineteenth two thousand and seven and it's not exhibited to the clerk of the court until december twen jurisdiction worker's compensation was created obviously by statute and hours and specifically states that subject matter jurisdiction in order for subject for the circuit court to have subject matter jurisdiction you have to comply with the statutory requirements in one thousand and one of the main discussion turned requirements which is exhibit a proof of payment of the record is absent until december twenty first two thousand and seven which is sixty five days after the time for filing the appeal to the circuit court laughs but wasn't it issue of jurisdiction raised yes it was in the circuit i wasn't raised here future you're absolutely correct in terms of the underlying facts of the case and the timeline of what occurred not to reiterate everything that has been said but to respond to counsel's argument that there's a significant prejudice to the petitioner in this matter i put forth that there's are specific and severe prejudice at this point to the respondent in this matter as evidenced by the fact that the petition rejected any type of settlement that the respondent had put forth and in the first attorney's petition for fees allege that he was trying to substantiate and says that and laid out the foundation for a wage differential the responde no longer exists during the time frame that this case has gone on and on and on the respondent went out of business and part of defending it wage differential case is to have someone from the respondent a supervisor a payroll discretion because the original file petition to reinstate was timely it was presented and provided a hearing date for the petition to reinstate no one from the petitioner or the petitioners attorney appeared and as arbitrary pilar stated in her order it was dismissed nothing occurs substantially to attempt to get this case reinstated within the thirty days which expired in may the very next attempt by anyone to get the case reinstated is not until march of two thousand and four which is i believe thirteen or fourteen months after the case was dismissed originally and that was simply a notice of motion form with a box marked reinstatement of case with no petition attached to it and it was never presented a status call to even a team that the it is not until august of two thousand and four which is eighteen or nights i believe eighteen months after the case was originally dismissed that the actual petition to return the case to the trial call with a notice of motion and presenting before an arbitrator at a status call entertaining a hearing date was presented that's well beyond the sixty days at which point the commission loses jurisdiction over a petition to reinstate so for the the commission to have abused its discretion