mission follow the mandate of the circuit court and order benefits under the act and both parties appeal the commission's decision back to the circuit court and we're back here the first time of this matter is in the circuit court chief on the motion for substitution of judges pursuant to section two dash one zero zero one two of the co of a procedure motion was granted over the objection of dykeman like and asserts that the circuit court's branch of the motion for substitution of judges was an error as a matter of law by its language section two dash one zero zero one eight action so if you if you if you define it worst compensation appeal as not following it is not going on the definition of a civil action then it then it it doesn't quite based on the language of the section of  says it is not true but there's also a foot authority that holds a circuit courts in workers compensation matters as defined by special powers that are conferred by statute again that's not a civil action it's a statute this is a statutory administrative seating which is different than civil action as criminal obviously is different than civil this is different than civil as well so i don't think you can apply considers the recently i decided case of chicago transit authority right however the record is clear that deaths the c t a case was brought to the attention the commission in the form of shade fail to prove accidental injury it didn't say the death of the rationale of the of the arbitrator the boilerplate language that it uses when it essentially rubber stamps an arbitration decision is that affirmative and adopts the decision doesn't say anything about the rationale i hate to push you on this i think i think the decision is firaaq i think the ration the basis that he used was correct at the time when the c t a case came down correctly day the decision is still correct based on the facts and made up our iraq decision this capitalized capital take you go through the decision of the arbitrator and incorporates all of the rationale that we've been talking about which is in khorat so a commission adopted that there was no specific rejection by the commission of the c t a case and i in my brief i point out case law that dictates we must pursue not the commission is aware of case law and the commission follows the one there is nothing in the record that rip that re these presumptions particularly where the record is clear that the c t case was brought to the commission's attention and argued before that body so i think if that case was the record is clear that they knew about the case in the end well like them to go in and write their own opinion the commission yes but you know that's just the nature of the beast is that the commission tends to take the well and i don't think i mean there is there is precedence there's authority that says that you keep you can't really you when it when it's unclear whether or not when the evidence shows that they knew about the case aware of it was it was brought to them in a written pleading i argued that both parties argued the case before why didn't the pyre why did apply depending on who argued it unfortunately we don't have the transcript of that oral argument but it was brought to their injury what transpired on october second twenty town was admittedly upsetting to mr sze but it was not a severe emotional shock for shay based on what a physical injury the record is clear and she went back to driving a truck in a week out within a week after the incident on october seven october eighth two thousand and ten shane made the same run driving through the same area where the incident companies so plug or fed ex's house either side we can have a driver who was involved in an accident continue driving or contractor for us until that accident has been fully investigated decided he would continue to drive i mean that's there's no other evidence that says otherwise in this case the record also shows that she did not seek any treatment because of the incident until april twenty seventh we're six months after the incident moreover there are indications in record that shea may not have such treatment until after meeting with his attorney in conjunction with a lawsuit against one of the drivers in the ten to twenty ten incident in the c t a court in the city a case this court held claimant suffered a psychological injury so i think in this case if you look at the manifest weight of the evidence there is a definitely an undermining infer undermin what dr bassett diagnosed was actually caused by the work x and then actual work x and actually existed therefore people under did no standard she failed to prove a psychological injury as a result of what transpired on ten to twenty time psychological injury still is relevant and may undermine it so i think if you look at that you take a look at the whole picture the fact they went back to driving the fact that he did go back to driving the fact that but were fed ex's policies he would continue there's no evidence he would not be continuing driving the truck that he looks for other truck driving jobs after he's no longer able to drive for the employer and the and the delay in treatment i think you put that all together in the manifest and the  commission did so and if i just want to before i want to time i just want to know the pope case where the supreme court held that it was appropriate for cases to be remanded back to the commission if there is some doubt on the face of the document as to whether or not the commission decision actually reflects the commission's decision and that quote case there was a form that they use and they there was a an alleged wrong check on the for aware of it and not what about his argument that the commission admittedly was aware of and consider him public transit when you make it well i don't make much of it for this reason when back ace was pending before the commission i took it upon myself to file a motion to bring to the commission's attention the chicago transit case he opposed it in a motion saying it's a slip up in i can't force a panel to make a decision now wanted two things happen either we assume they consider it something they refused to express we rule of on and why they didn't rule is beyond me but i have my own thoughts about that and how i feel but that's irrelevant to this proceeding one of two things if they did consider it they consider it wrong because they affirmed the decision of the arbitrator for the reasons cited number two if they didn't consider it and they just the fact that the arbitrator's decision that is a matter of law is wrong i think the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that commission refused the liberally to make a ruling on a pending motion for whatever reason perhaps they agree with household that at least was still pending a slip decision and opted not to consider my arguments just as a bailing on that is is would be but either way when the commission made its decision in total it adopted the arbitrator's position they added there's a two prong test which i think we all as a matter of law was wrong based upon trog pre amps of that's as fancy i can give if i'm to distill this case down to a nutshell i think it comes down to this assuming a wrong legal standard was relied upon the case is remained of the commission should it be remained it to start all over again and reconsider all the evidence in the light of chicago transit on the merits or should it be remained on the issue of whether or not a wage differential should be awarded based on this record if it's a manifest assuming we're going to remain and if from the circuit court to the commission to make a ruling based on this record on  manifest weight of the evidence standard a denial of compensation in my humble opinion cannot stand and i say it for this reason the test of manifest weight is whether or not the opposite result is clearly apparent in this argument that he was fair in this case they don't claim he was on there there is no argument his credentials are on a sale board certified fellowship trained professor of psychiatry published in peer reviewed journals  me i want this the that's heading to the chase what i'm asking that this case be reminded to the commission for the entry of a wage differential award based on the evidence as a matter of law and that we do that when there's been no factual findings made by the enter that finding based on the undisputed backs on the record on the testimony of dr bassett dr bassett a sandwich this man suffers from post traumatic stress disorder tribute able to this ferry accident the mere fact he didn't immediately manifest the symptom of it is no longer here is no longer relevant it's not required it can be based upon this court's decision and shrug of trance that that promise is no longer there but if it's a stamp wish that he has posttraumatic stress disorder if it's a stamp which that it's related to the accidental and it's established that it's permanent based upon the henri budget psychiatric testimony there is no purpose t revamp or any other reason other than to order the commission to enter an order finding the case compensable and to make an award which i am asking to be a wage differential based on the testimony that they advance and i say that on this record because in my humble opinion it is unreasonable to allow a trier of fact to take a the lay of a number of months that we have in this case supreme court said in oil in our words the same body that's at issue if you have a car accident and man vs woman hurts his back but had a previous back injury if the defendant wants to refute the facts of the issue of the injury at hand they have to bring forward expert testimony that's beyond the hand and the words of the boy and decision of the average jerk or trier of fact that principle holds true with even greater force and effect in this case when we're dealing with psychiatric injuries which unlike physical injuries are not readily apparent when we're dealing with psychiatric entries such as post for manic stress disorder that is beyond the ken of the average trier of fact juror or commissioner to draw those inferences and true enough if there is a substantial the way in a vacuum that can be a factor but taken in the context of this case where the only psychiatric evidence we have is from and as for the chosen by the defendant on a sale credentials on a seo testing reliable testing peer reviewed built in validity scales and this expert stood bass this man has post traumatic stress it's related to the accident is permanent he can no longer drive with degree moreover moreover based on in the words of the same action he cannot have a mental nervous organic or functional disease or psychiatric disorder likely to interfere with his ability to drive or a motor vehicle if my mind went out to drive a motor vehicle now and get a cd out he would be compelled to disclose the findings of dr bassett that i have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and there's been a finding by that diagnosis i can't drive big rigs as a matter of why i can't drive these rigs anymore he's proved time and facia that he isn't title to a wage differential since he can't return to their usual and customary employment you know i think i understand the argument but invite the panel to consider this would be back here eventually on the manifest weight of the evidence family and that's what's going to happen and if the commission is recalcitrant and comes back and says we're going to now substitute our opinion for that of the on disputed testimony of their i am me and fine that all of his findings are wrong does either doesn't have the most dramatic it's related to something else that's going to be back here on a manifest way and i'm going  it just takes away my breath what's happening here and on the issue of the wage differential i've already made my point about the code of federal regulations taking him out is there i am he put us in that position we asked for vocational rehabilitation we were denied he did a job search as best he could he described everyone the commission says well maybe he could go back to doing wor helicopters that he did in the military more than a decade ago he's sixty two years old maybe could be a mechanic he worked on helicopters in the military back in desert storm or earlier this man according to  dr bassett's report tried to find work with helicopters every got out of the military long ago and found it too competitive you can shout back then is it reasonable to think he's going to get a job now that he's sixty two years old and has post traumatic stress disorder  indication even as a pilot's license i i could go on but i i think i've made my point thank you thank you council for your argument and cannot do because you don't there's no fine there's no work gaps in this case base there's no emotional there's no severe emotional shock was upsetting yes and a human being would be upset that remains to be seen but there was a factual fight in a few applied the factual findings of the arbitrator to the correct standard which i think you can do we didn't yeah you medications they were therapy that he could use to to possibly get back to driving a truck and and there was no evidence that mr sze to come up on that treatment so the fact that he's not able to drive a truck now under federal standards is because he did do what he could have done military experience he's got life experiences and for for for this for dolan to sue compare mr sze with a high school dropout is is just not credible on that there's there's no facts to support a