hollywood casino brings me back i happen to represent hollywood casino  please the court will my name is george clucky and i am representing the chicago board of education in this case initially i would say that  the one of the main issues initially is jurisdiction of this court and the jurisdiction obviously of the circuit court it is our position that the circuit court allowed this case to proceed decision it starts it at the time of receipt of the city but the only information we have in the record with regard to receipt of the record is a letter from counsel attached to  obviously there is no argument with respect to whether there's jurisdiction or not but anything after that there needs to be an establishment of when the decision was received and at that time it did back in two thousand and sixteen the commission was sending the decisions by email and i believe that it is the appellant's duty at that level to establish when they receive the decision and that a letter from at that point was a formal count former counsel stating that the decision was received on a certain date without attaching the email from the workout commission if that is the case we would ask the commission to dismiss the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and then the only workers compensation commission decision would still be in effect and be the final decision of this or if we if we move to the merits of the case obviously the standard is manifest weight of the evidence and all of the decisions that he or workers compensation commission decided how it goes to jurisdiction on procedural basis right correct but that it maintenance was the boxes not chap so what do we do when you order it comes out of the circuit court remanding it because it reviewed reviewed reversed an issue that wasn't an issue and sends it back for a decision on an issue that wasn't to the issue or what are we supposed to do with that one specifically who we know is a reversal of a finding that was never a finding so the commission never ruled by me and what was there for the circuit court to set aside there was never any issue with respect to maintenance i don't really have a tradition of ever trust level or at the commission it would be nice if that's your position that it would be articulated especially when you're in a statutory jurisdictional procedure to thank thank you so in terms of the merits of the case the reviewing court obviously can't reach an opposite conclusion unless there is sufficient evidence that the commission that supports the commission's decision there's plenty of evidence in this case to support the commission's decision first of all  she immediately went to my or medical and had complaints of left knee and right forefinger those are the only things that she complained of on the date of injury the next day she went to her primary care physician d then she goes to dr white and june th of ninety seven complains of ghouls needs elbow shoulder neck back ribs and hand pain neither of those three doctor visits was or any reference at all to her feet and we know from the record both dr warmly and dr andrea that the feet were problematic well in advance of this that took filter that through their analysis and determined that there were no complaints to the right feet the right feet or the feet by lateral feet were not  don't show that there's a relationship with the right knee or bilateral feet now the right knee there were complaints periodic lee of the right knee and of the feet there was  was whether that's released to return to work or not and i believe it's pretty clear this release to return to work if he says are restrictions are x y and z  the vocational reports indicate that there was really no great effort to return back so responded would argue that all of these was done for the elbow of the shoulder the neck back ribs the right hand there was initial complaints of a finger fracture but that also occurred prior to the date of accident and was being treated for that as well  persuasive in this particular case why because we have negative m r i s don't have complaints right away of the various issues we have dr krieger but don't forget that  was examiner needs at the request of dr white her doctor warmly her own treating physician who said that she doesn't have a problem with her right knee and that was in june of two  it's difficult sometimes to you know that there's a very long a very detailed decision but i but in the conclusion he make changes to the decision of the commission you know sexually bursa get on a number of different issues  the composition commission file its electronic record of transmission because of the rules of mission say that is there are officials form or documentation when something is communicated but having said that there is evidence in the record the problem is a nap in that and that's the problem with the response reliance on alexander is that they rely on alexander but alexander just says hey you take commissions this is decision and you have to assume that the commission has issue response makes this great deal about how there was prior treatment of one of the feet st of all that was two years before this accident too is only one visit three is only the ya just very briefly with respect to prior cream of the feet it is not correct it was years before ms jones richard saw a doctor gormley her primary care physician on before a few months before the date of accident and she asked ect requirement for a referral so she could have her heels and feet looked at because of heel spurs so there were complaints of that relating her feet to the accident that's the issue there and that's why the commission stated there was manipulation going on throughout this treatment because the petitioner would make all in his brief indicated that you know the feet were mentioned in the employee accident report and the employee saw report there's no mention of feet  there's mention of a lot of other things a sprained strains his damages the knees but there's no indication of any problems with her feet as it related to the accident and these were documents that she comp and that it was for the purpose i may stand corrected a bit if i just said here and i researched the for the purpose of getting time it's the next business day following the data transmission i'm just