MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
this is four ten zero six two eight and i choose that were very carefully because an attorney submits something to the court for a decision much the same way a nurse defers to a doctor to make a diagnosis and we submit to the  was not allowed and should continue not to come first of all nurse brockhouse not qualified by her licensure to offer an opinion on the medical diagnos is a matter of law in illinois there is a certain act known as the nursing in advanced practice nursing act found it's to twenty five miles yes by life one day one  and that act draws a clear distinction between what a nurse can and cannot do one of the things a nurse can do is making nursing diagnosis one of the things i nurse absolutely cannot explicitly do under the act is make a medical diagnosis now yeah there's not define those terms for us i suspect it would be very unwieldy and truthfully impossible for the legislature to to fashion any kind of useful definition of those terms in any of that ordinary sprocket house to have been qualified to offer an opinion that she did in fact nursing diagnosis and the reason is this it's a medical diagnosis all the experts in this case testified what is your definition of the difference between a nursing diagnosis and medical diagnosis well i don't carry one around personally because of probably for the same reason that the legislature didn't define those terms in the act i think they would define defy a specific diagnos evidence law question of what whether to take a person is an expert's area a permitted to testify as an expert in the medical malpractise section of the possible conditions his patient might be based upon the information he received from the nurse later of hospital is another base it's simply misleading not trying to answer a question directed to the appellant who is not here but at the same time i think poses a problem
associate in this case we provided for with an extensive history on the case because we felt like it was necessary for the court to be weeded out of the errors that were made in this case from the very beginning as the court is where is the purpose as to where a juvenile court act is and i quote to preserve in strengthen the minor families minors family ties whenever possible removing him or her from the custody of his or her parent the issue before this court is the second step about the process which is the dispositional fortune on that hearing where the record determines whether it's consistent with the health safety and best interest of the miners and the public november in august of two thousand and seven team had visited with them and then he had most recently spoken to them or communicated with them in october of two thousand and seventeen so that's in the way a month on december twentieth which was not healthcare there's a first appearance here so you're facing the world even though they say that there was a hearing held on the sixteenth you're saying there was no such thing that's correct ok place to put them and sleep better at the end of the hearing the track or told to respond that he that he should now know why these children why he was not immediately notified about the children's removal and that was because they couldn't get with touch were they now he says oh i just moved down the road but his wife although he wasn't living with her said she didn't know how to get a hol i mean that was just just as wrong as he said nobody knew nothing about it he refused to tell them anything about himself he didn't seem to answer any questions about himself tenuous connection he had with his children he had not lived with the children since two thousand and eleven and we are talking about two thousand and eight his most recent visit and he call sixteen and i think what this is standishes is that we've got a father who by his own admission has not spent more than a week with these children in two years i think knowing something
just it's my it's my understanding or it's my experience that people in your position how is that different than you're going to get a good time for it i would think it's script that would cover every conceivable thing that might go through define its mind to make sure that there's complete clarity but we don't live in a perfect world and so i guess i don't i'm certainly
run before but here might be required here or the issue is does any sort of gap in custody preclude the imposition of made into a detention in the first place and i think the distinction i hope that i think this will tie in some want to the reasons that we think this court should apply the ordinary rules of waiver and hold the appellant here to its requirement to present the issues clearly and in a non perfunctory someone into custody and he was very sensitive about his belief that there might be some reasonable time and how do we address that within the context or is it is a reasonable time to start
testifying in front of the public but you don't have to be very imaginative with respect to the meat to movement this is a sexual assault case or a sex scase and the defendant's best interest is to make it easy for potential jurors to disclose whether they are ever any other member of their family has ever been the victim or accused of this but it's so i think the defendant interest during last year is full disclosure the jurors truthfulness and the interest in the added entry portion of the trial for defendant is don't lie don't lie to the front of all these people do you see a distinction
yes but it's it's the surrounds this video and that's why i'm asking because we were going to have to identifying we don't know what that video was going to say really at this point we we don't rule it down
appellate numbers sixteen dash thirteen six thirteen sixty five thirteen sixty six and thirteen sixty seven in the nature of my right if i'm in the class and i go along happily and then after the five years dances and then the class a certified i still have member of the class but them say well we think we ought to sell for two hundred apiece there for the talking for that talk and finally they settle for six three hundred apiece and so out of the fifty who were were thinking that two hundred was not enough another i'm not describing this very well what i'm saying is you had a bunch of people in  hundred there are people who would opt out and file suits but if you say you got to opt out within the five years then oh oh oh you know you never know what statute of repose would beat well that's your position yes and there seems that seems inconsistent with the fact that you know that would be fair by extending the time in which the private right right of action language and are you familiar with the extent or statute if there is there is a statute that congress created for when federal agencies sort of step in the shoes of a high then he says like receivers or things that nature and they basically ha
to be able to understand what you are here my brother above that by the provision of said agreement you have the right to request the appropriate prosecuting officer of the jurisdiction in which any such indictment information or complaint this is pending and the  oh well the caseworker did not testify so we don't know how so we don't know what he told the senate we don't know the caseworker was an attorney
give a lot of weight to what the trial court has to town and we're not supposed to reverse it unless it's against manifest weight of the evidence and you argue a simple issues here but tell me what is your
necessarily like clearly erroneous that clearly erroneous was imported into the regulation to require a higher standard because that trend who has been awarded service ought not to have it removed lightly just honestly i don't know the stalker case but i'm just a little concerned because our jurisdiction is so narrow in these cases that i'm i'm a little nervous about the idea that we would be able to get the matter of the law in compliance didn't come up and i just say boy that's wrong it seems that's like that's what dr duran said here but a lot of times i don't get to choose between right and wrong because i'm bound by a more deferential standard of review well the same thing applies here clearly erroneous and i said it if he only used the word in art that was closer to a not correct determination however if you look at the opinion at all as the poor did and i support it and they made a factual
reimbursement of reasonable reason expenses under seven to five had titled it to these expenses and i think that's the case here because the defining bit about their lies got his transcripts for free under six outside them and didn't because the trial court explicitly excluded th different issue than the expert fees because the trend the statute explicitly provides for reasonable expertise it doesn't necessarily go into all the different other reasonable expenses that you could get right in this direction with respect to expert fee second name mentioned that you cannot but i think you can assume that the court made a reasonable just made a determination if you look at the transcript there is no discussion of any factors or anything she just simply deny the motion without any reasoning and i can say that that is a reasonable
it's it's the late night version of the same thing where you know maybe these languages something like that or maybe you know performances that maybe you don't want your six six grade girls to watch quite yet so  but this one is yeah that's for everybody pretty much so it's what what i want to do on the road today is not take a look at a contemporary performer but take a look at some more stuff from the past as i said i would be doing and so this is going to be sound he's volume two and today we're going to take a look at jazz and in some of the great black artists from the past i'm talk retro i'm talking absolute classic i'm talking gold yeah you're going to go they enjoy that if you like jazz you like job man you're going to you're going to be doing really well during this one i guarantee you and of course all this even though the music itself is not in the public domain the vehicle for which it is in has gone public domain which allows us to show it to you some of the best performances ever from black artists who ultimately so affected western culture and then eastern culture it is hard to estimate the amazing this that that what you're about to see from these artists has had on the world and on pop culture as we know it so sit back you are in full and amazing ride as some of the best of the best the whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa
on april twenty second twenty third on the issue of damages that's still ongoing separate trial in april tails he has already appealed that and there are already two big case it's the same facts same cause of action the and it's causing damage upstream it's a new sands and it's violating the civil flow of civil law drainage their actions should not be so there's no taking involved in what's going on with the time i and there's an build the levees there are still up to where there's no harm there should be no compensation for not proper to bring it in a second in the second case so that's why this whole matter should be involved in the original case should it be a separate issue with the separate same was president knowing what was going on during the trial and look this court has already found that they should have and maybe it was transferred to eight months first there's an ongoing litigation with the same parties same fact to where they had an opportunity to raise the issue of seeking just compensation for it and burst condemnation and they did raise it it's raises an affirmative defense and sarah they get every opportunity to bring it up have in it's been decided in the other case so this is absolutely  transactional test had a separate claim to be considered the same cause of action if they arise from that single group of operative facts regardless if they assert different theories of relief and so the fact that test didn't raise a counterclaim who are the white male see is trying to do here in this case there was an opportunity to do that and and it just make it somewhere k l c should not be compensated were illegal leave had you know levies on their land that they were legally constructed they don't just get to do whatever they want with their land when they're damaging neighboring properties and cheryl again if you look at the bradbury case  basically says if you're damaging if you're throwing water back upon the land of another then that person is going to have a right of action against you so it analyzed the fact that it was the government who was going to the person who was damaging otherly and so that was the taking but in this case the government is the one being harmed so why would they have to compensate somebody for obstructing their land it doesn't make sense to where there shouldn't be any sort of compensation in court for telling somebody that they've illegally put something on their way and that's harming their neighbors
that mean it's not an adequate remedy under the t don't believe it even although ju order to make the argument that we're making veriest that the fuel used while idle is not used for propulsion it's not actual in the first instance we have to do that in front of our vespa administrator and it seems to me that probably you have to show that you can't go to court each of these other states and get affectively i think you may be right if i go wrong but i think a speedy and efficient means something
when i ask you a question please thank you if the if the situation is that if something is incrementally worse that's not a change country condition but something that is categorically worse can be a change country condition how does the evidence that was before the be in the end also the immigration how does that show that it was in fact actually for the b i show that it would categorically and increase in a different substantial way rather than just incrementally worse and why and if it did it there's a discrepancy between the two and the evidence could go either way should we do we have any burden to that's fine the question is whether the
money that they but i settle on
and so since it's since it has before for g e does does state that the insurance carrier will be primarily liable for the work injury that occurs under the dates of coverage and then the next the next sections with a four g states that relevant to speaking of a line of interest are you claiming any prejudice here was there evidence that wasn't presented that be arbitration that you believe would have been specifically you need and would have been helpful euro and so if we could perhaps address the question of why the commission's order was against the math are you better say that insurance party candidate as it is is an added party that the language isn't restrictive of saying that it claim it is the only one who is allowed to add surance carries a part and hats for jihad and while it may oftentimes be when four g gets utilized that might be why we're here at a first impression on this issue because usually it is more of a claimant that we're worried about adding insurance carrier to a plane but that sense for g s is not restrictive  also on that dr passions record it said he's here for a new problem so we've got contradictory testimony with his main treating doctor with the first doctor he goes and he seeks treatment from bilateral scratched off it's a new problem  he filed a claim against the wire on the daily arbitration to conform the pleadings to the proof we amended the application to change the date of manifestation o fourteen two thousand and ten the defense attorney at the time was no longer involved in the case he stipulated to it you agreed the manifestation day was the day that i amended it just so happens that you do the defense counsel  i were aware of that his insurance company did not have the coverage and that's the problem ok they got a great defense they had a defense exam with dr dave brown they didn't like his opinion they stipulated that if the history if the history provided by the employee was accurate dr brown's opinion of you that this claim is work related if the history is inconsistent or not or contrary to you look at the history or student if you look at the testimony of each of the employee his testimony is consistent with the history given to the defense doctor dr david brown dr david brown gave his opinion on because asian if the history is accurate then this then the medical condition is work related that was very simple and if you look at this history he had the symptoms during his employment he complained one time on his last day on the day of the somehow between arbitration with the mission he found out this is there it wasn't verified by the treating surgeon who treated his his right shoulder for a different work injury but he didn't he didn't substantiate the complaints from age there are two different two different references in the
this state failed to do this with respect to all three miners with respect to the ground there was a complete failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt  son's for a while then he left the group to indiana he spent the evening christmas night evening with his brother they talked a great he spent the night and he came home the next day couldn't even believe that that would be him and don't you think a defendant is entitled to a good lawyer or at least competent lawyer one hundred percent of the time and supposed to at times he would do
insist that have been recently decided we can look at whole vs memorial hospital and anatomy the hospital boys were sued for not knowing their her not telling the three treating physicians of the and this is why the defendant's arguments about
representations made by the attorney to the court and it looks to both of those two things so are you saying that under those representations are required in order for us to find sufficien as if it were not important even the prosecutor is troubled by this so this hold on let's you know this is well i mean they want discussing whether or not the certificate was the right certificate they were discussing whether or that crystal clear made the decisions like people versus where i was in two thousand and seven where it said that the fulfillment of this design would not be encouraged were we to ignore the rules non serious waiver does not apply to the second issue because we want what the infrastructure of this process to work correctly and if it's not working correctly we want to fix that regardless of the appellate procedural rules that might work  he said no i'm ready to go for i don't want to dish the time to speak with him does that somehow bar him from winning now when he declined the opportunity i can tell who for the for those it seems pretty clear that the judge share the concerns of the prosecutor and i think this is reasonable i think to assume that the judge would have given more time if the judge was repeating what the prosecutor said it know along with jennings to create a room a small amount of room for issues that are closely related to the planes that are explicitly race in the petition so the generals you only have to look at it by decision but if if argument when fully developed would have been a winning argument but it was a closely related argument to start arguments that just it was already making and it was obvious in the face of the record so it may be that this admission argument so i don't understand happens the media leave before the hearing on the motions us and that's seriously problematic that is found to be sufficient consultation way after the fact of the certificate documenting let's consider that that should not be sufficient to survive this review now there's also beyond the issue of jennings and then adding additional issues titian there's a general failure to remember just just to present the proper legal since the substance of the filing the representation for the system with sixty one see that this war should conclude that the th now defendant contends that this issue is closely related to what he raised in the kitchen however his basic argument in the petition the focus of the considered data he should not have to be raised unless it was the cheapest if it was contained in the post conviction here clearly there was no just of it improperly mission that claim requires review of an earlier pretrial hearing transcript by the rule six fifty one c rule six zero forty doesn't require that type of analysis and this language doesn't meet will six fifty one
to mr murphy who suffered an injury that would not allow him to play work as a sanitation flavor or family known as a garbage bag i were there are other duties associated with the garbage man or lesser  his medical provision but also includes a line of person isn't titled to vocational rehabilitation and i asked for vocational rehabilitation and  is there any provision in the workers compensation to open up or awarded additional benefits after commissions decision becomes final order of the nineteen  to you don't have to re open and go before the commission he's entitled to live there for ever you only go before the commission or if they refuse to pay but do you are you would tigray any benefits other than medical benefits completely economic disability according to petri the absence in the mind united airlines is no basis for nineteen a truly for ok you get it for physical or but then they go off into this discussion and remember that the  their would mean that would mean then i suppose that you can come in within thirty months and claim i was my jobs you got to give me more money although my physical condition has not bat was not appealed he then comes in and says my physical condition has not changed my mental condition has not changed but i want to go back now i want to ask for a maintenance under every time we cite a case that's exactly what we're doing there's nothing new about it i mean we don't reinvent the wheel every time we get these things if there's a case that we find to be presidential and we we read from a news so we reaffirmed it every time i guess you didn't like the first of the building blocks but we relied on it two times that i can figure out a in i think you can if he has an increase in physical or mental disability but under petry we turned around and said the definition of disability is contained with ian nineteen agent does not unless you first establish an increase in physical or mental disability because we've said that the word disability is the means physical  right if it's a result of heart attack the word b and disability would be a great dancer there are others who were happy it never speaks of physical disability or benefit to the commission chooses to give its available under the act based upon their increased physical disability yes or petri only talks about economic instability in this case we have no increase their physical restrictions and keep the job open for the employee throughout the entire worker's comp process and after the final award comes down from the commission or the arbitrator if it's not appealed and then fire him nothing stops you from doing it well i think that's he can't go back and get the benefits he would have been entitle to if he hadn't given him the job to begin with i think there might  of her purposefully frustrating the workers compensation by offering jobs only for the purpose of awarding green benefits under the hair and as soon as the decision has entered in response to whether or not how they handle these yet and i'm going to go through some take you for the jackson part hospital decision earlier this year i think it satisfies the question