meaningless number two you create a harder standard in which to file a worker's compensation claim than other types of claims even though dealing with workers compensation continuously says that it is to be liberally construed and that specific part of the act says that notice is not a favored backus i'd like to start off by pointing out that i believe this is clearly a question of law in th standard of review the facts are not being disputed on mr miller to ski testified that he told the owner of the company who was deceased at the time of the trial so this was angered by the testimony they couldn't take things also explained the condition of the leg yes he did and i believe that that's a separate issue in the case as to whether there's a causal connection or not with regard to notice i believe his conduct was line and the notice of well first of all you did they're going to have to know that it's work related within three years because there's three are special imitations so eventually they're going they're going to have to notify them for that they feel it's a work related accident second again this notice we're not saying it's perfect notice we're saying it's defective now that doesn't mean you stand you still can't defend the case i notice you certainly are freed are you are prejudiced and therefore they get the ruling should be that that was improper notice however i believe once you infer once your employer is aware that you have an injury and that it's making it difficult for you to work that's defective notice so i believe clearly this is a question i believe that the language of the white cases is stick this fire is proving that you have to have an actual intent you have to give notice of a natural industrial accident so in other words i agree with the whole thing in life because  unlike the petitioner specifically said this didn't happen at work so i believe if your employer notices you have a condition you're having a problem they ask about you say no this isn't work related then i believe that's no notice at all defective notice in this case other than showing a physical and firmly what's to tied in to the workplace what notice is that notice of what white clearly stands for the proposition kno that to me it's noticed that that he's got a condition that's that's affecting his work so i would be the difference if somebody has an injury at home over the weekend it comes in monday morning and they're still there looking around they can't move the employer supposed to assume his work to that they're not supposed to assume anything until he files the application and says that he's got a worker's comp claim or so therefore they've been given defective notice and the employer can argue that they're prejudice the problem with  i believe that again if you find there is no notice in this case and the only way to show there is notice is by telling your employer that you had an industrial accident then there is no such thing as defective notice and the plain language that's right earlier i pointed out the distinction that this is a repetitive trauma case it's it's a very difficult situation because the app in my opinion the legislative dentyne is when they're talking about the act of notice and everything's they're talking about specific injuries so when you have a repetitive trauma you have the act talks about having it dead in a game time place and the problem is and while i'm on this point about talking about different types of ra the problem is not only workers comp but all types of cycling case or an occupational exposure case you have someone that may not be able to read the employer knows he can't bring the employee might not know he was exposed to a specific chemical so on your products liability statute he's going to have two years from when he knew or should know about the condition with an outsider for so therefore the products case which is much more disfavor which doesn't specifically say its provisions are to be liberally construed someone can file a product case looking barred in essence by the forty five day notice requirement of illinois workers comp that the forty five day notice requirement is a creation of the legislature is it not it's certainly is and that's why i believe in the same section that creates it is specifically noted that is to be construed liberally and it specifically cards are an exception for defective notice all of which is true however i think most people would agree that simply looking around when it's known to the accident and i think that's if that's the law if that's the ruling then this section of the act that talks about defective notice and that notice is a disfavored defense is that he's trying to find another argument to bring before you in this case i mean first of all there's a question of whether this conversation even took place by the time the application was amended in october of two thousand and five mr barack had passed away he passed away in two thousand and three there was no way for us to find out whether this conversation occurred because until october two thousand and five the accident date had been june one of two thousand and two with a different company a different attorney we never had a chance to find out whether the conversation took place additionally what also wasn't brought up was that the petitioner after he alleges he provided notice of another accident november thirtieth two thousand he actually settled a case that he had filed in january thirteenth one thousand nine hundred nine on december seventh two thousand which was also for the same body part as this now alleged claimants then we go through the to the actual conversation he had with his employer we we know he has arthritis notes in june of two thousand actually discuss the accident from generate three thousand nine hundred ninety nine and discussed the fact that his bilateral knees should require additional treatment he's also taking prednisone the swelling in his knees is from the conversation with his employer saying my knees are swollen i'm in pain i'm going to see the doctor there's absolutely no indication of anything regarding an injury and really  disease he'd been treating or that the only thing that could have cost would be provided in a defective notice is that he had an open claim for the same body part which he then settled per se seven days later then in april of two thousand and three he filed a claim i also filed a motion under statue imitations attempting to argue that the amendment of the application was actually not allowable but in fact the amendment and the case law states that since he filed an april of two thousand and three he was stand by the commission on the issue of notice because we feel that it is definite additional didn't provide any notice and regarding accident a reasonable person standard the courts have chosen to decide that the petitioner himself was the reasonable person i wish a century makes all of us have to be that would have then been more to accident because actually at the time of the june one of two thousand and eight the employer who was alive at the time said that had a note in the personnel file saying that there was no notice at that time either he filed in april two thousand and three which is apparently first noticed that anybody even had regarding his alleged repetitive trauma claim because he had been continuously treating for addison's disease and even the medical records which actually goes to causal relation which we would have to the relationship that you would defend against i understand that but would you have gone after lack of notice if it did have been imminent yes actually at the time like i said there's no doubt there's a piece of paper in the file from mr babbitt saying that he that in repetitive trauma we go back to when there's a reasonable person which is the petitioner in this had believed he had an accident right i think that you know we discussed whether we would appeal accident because i think you co very strong case we chose to stand only on notice with the commission i would have thoroughly enjoyed also briefing the accident which i think very interesting concept but we chose to just stand strong what we felt was very clear again i apologize that i didn't realize that this was an issue before this court on a rare already been fully briefed it already been decided by the arbitrator and that part of the arbitrator's ruling commission for any reason in the record i understand i mean i'm very familiar with the issue in that there's the wrist case law on point and that's why the arbitrator ruled the way he did that in a conversation that effects an insurance claim or a claim a liability claim if there is insurance then the petitioner can testify to conversations with and with the owner of a business if there is there is a case