the employee's been appealed to the same bear county circuit court and the origins were scheduled on october twenty sixth two thousand and sixteen however the employer was not notified of that hearing being contacted the counsel for the employer at that time and counsel for the employee buys that never received notice of the hearing and so it was agreed between the pairings that we would then submit proposals for the courts rule on within thirteen days and so the circuit poor order circuit board as directed the city to ensure the employee's proposed order on november seventh two thousand and sixteen and that's two days before the proposed orders were due by the court's own deadline the employer never received a copy of  me seventeen it was the first time that it came to light that there were conflicting waters out there and a hearing to reconcile the record was held at the suggestion of the circuit court said record clarified that it intended to file denial of that petition that the employer lacked a meritorious defense however the poor granted that the employer had established the other two elements of two fourteen zero one pertaining to do diligence we've been appealed that  order of june fifteenth twenty seventeen to discord and for appeal we are not making either of those arguments in our petition a big red we asserted when i was serving that good november seventh twenty sixteen order is now fine it would make no sense to do that because the very purpose of or simply to reenter the same order and give us a new thirty days for the purpose that we didn't get a copy of the order we found it was improper for the court to enter the order before it its own deadline head expired and before even received our be the due diligence elements discuss the responsibility of the attorneys and it allows for some equitable consideration of the circumstances impacts to come into play two and good conscience may require it to be felt just maybe big hit even though the requirement of due diligence has not been satisfied kinder stand this is not a default judgment in this case but i think the equitable considerations that are clearly acceptable in a two with regard to the dispute of the settlement contract and in doing so the commission established the marriage if not the validity of our defense and i know we don't need to prove the validity but i think that is very strong evidence that are our defense in the underlying  the trier of fact would allow the petitioner to defeat the claimant we need an actual that it actually that the court actually believed or given only that it had married and so they were because the employer court's june fifteenth order because he ruled in our favor with regard to do diligence however if the court considers the due diligence arguments we likewise believe that we've satisfied those elements i've already touched on briefly the key issue of full consideration the circumstances in this particular case are that we argued our case diligently to the commission when it was appealed to the city poor we acted diligently in timely and filing a timely entry  appearance we cooperated with opposing counsel in entering a scheduling order we time we submitted our proposed order within the deadline submitted by the poor and we acted quickly when it was when it brought to light that there were conflicting orders out there prevailed on our appeal and that there was no further action needed on our part to seek relief in this case touched on mitchell beefy et al as in why it does not apply in this case to the two holdings being that it's not a order which represented to us that we had prevailed on the merits of our case the attorney mitchell had relied on the misrepresentation of the word based on something the better it had no authority to do again big case you are bringing into the same order believe that we have clearly established that the issues bed really raises in her brief really pertain to the due diligence elements which the poor has already found that we had the satisfied and so in that regard is why i say we are really only challenging the the first part the meritorious defense element and the ruling with regard to that element because the court ruled in our favor on the due diligence and so as long counsel to seek to remedy that confusion in that conflict and we appeared for a fair hearing on the employee's motion of clarify the record and once it became clear that the what the birds intent was then we acted quickly and within any other believe that this were teams just improper thank you come from please the court mr sanchez many miss christie could see and i represent the employee angela brown were here to day so argue that not only was the eleven seven sixteen order entered by  final word but that the court laughter stiction to enter the december twenty seventh two thousand and sixteen order and also it would have been improper and the court was correct in denying that the employer section fourteen no one at petition not then do i get to appear before an appellate court and have what i believe to be a completely on case on one case by the year by the illinois supreme court but in th case i believe that mitchell is and we've already discussed the facts of the case but to just briefly go over it there wasn't it there was a hearing were arguments and it depravities participated the court asked for existence of an order but not what the order sat and mitchell very queerly the supreme court instructed and limitation of three zero three requires attorneys to monitor their cases to ensure that appeal interesting is that the employer in this case argues that the kind of and the interesting thing is they were really running this something because they got a call saying we're here we're all arguments where are you regardless of why they want the but the fact that the court gave them the courtesy and used an efficient process by which it said oh look at the briefs and you can submit proposed orders and i'll make a decision doesn't give them the right to not monitor their cakes and i don't think there because i found it so significant they were unaware of anything in that case and didn't chat until january which was well outside the thirty day requirement for them to do sell so unfortunately and i'm i'll be honest i took  case came out and we had several strongest procedures to check doggett's because it became our duty at that point but that's why a think it's so important in this case to look at the fact that it was undisputed dissent really shows that he believes hey this was never even filed or made and there were a couple of record in the supreme court still said sorry in this case there is no dispute that the november seventh two thousand and sixteen order was a matter of public record we got off base maybe didn't but we got it and that's why we quit monitoring the file we didn't want to appeal we were happy with the wanted that stunt but yes we do when it comes to technical kill procedure which i think we're somebody had no idea what was going on they didn't get their day in court they didn't get to present their client's case and even some of them was a request that they had record that their client wasn't even involved in an accident where they had a nine hundred fifty thousand dollars judgment don't find any reason why mitchell should preclude its use in a in a worker's compensation case that is for the circuit court on appeal as i stated in my initial argument the feeling of mitchell dealt improper and workers compensation context if they did believe that then they would have made that threshold ruling and they would have had to make the analysis that they did in that decision she also disk this is rule three zero three in the requirement that  attorneys must monitor their final everything she discussed really in essence the approaches the due diligence elements of two fourteen zero one which killed a abuse of discretion were granted that we had satisfied those elements i don't believe that opposing counsel viciously presented a case to find an abuse of discretion with regard to the june fifteenth twenty seventeen stock to come out this one yes it had originally been filed here it was transferred to the workers compensation docket for the appellate court but then it was realized that this really isn't germane to the worker's compensation issues within the