as you can probably tell in the briefs i was quite surprised by the commission determination in this case so it came out of left field that i think that there was a possibility that that decision could have been helped we submit that the commission decision in this case was on the bennett strain and not supported by well established law you know annoy for the following reasons we respectfully request that you reverse the committee's decision using the commissioners dissenting commissioners rationale in the arbitrator's findings as an award in this case as you know there were two issues that have been raised by us the first one is the standard of review and the second issue is compensable it if i mags i was a trial lawyer i know the case very well i just want to run by some of the facts very quickly my client developed a work related solicitor this control he saw dr smith his doctor was on medication when he needed to be on medication and went on with his life when my client went to pop the blister home  sterilized the needle he's the cotton swab get taken a shower to get everything right but in council and i'm sorry but i don't want you to run out of time and that and you've got some issues to get you started it you indicated one of those commission's decision here in regards to end their independent intervening accident be an eyeful to deference i would say really for three reasons number one it's contrary illinois law as i'd like to get into in a few minutes by their conclusion this is an intervening act i mean that's been well documented and both go and past in minoan there's a whole lot of cases that lay out intervening acts this kind of scenario where somebody treats app home for work related problem has never been even closely remotely construed as intervening the car accidents are going to be all the episodes are intervening so i would say just in response your honor that because this scenario the facts are in dispute of the commission laid out specifically what if you lied upon and it was basically all of our facts in finding this was intervening that wouldn't be allowed any higher standard of review but it could have if it was a rule against my clients and said  ice it's an abuse of discretion standard the commission could have ruled against us in that respect they deliberately i believe made this a question of off by the way they wrote up their decision why they did eventually it was going to come up are reviewing a case involving notice when we are reviewing a case involving arising out of a room of course the commission has to make a judgment based on the facts that are presented and even when the facts presented around disputed if you're honorable if this appellate court finds that i'm wrong this is manifest weight and you don't find that the decision is against the manifest weight i have just created the law in illinois has just created new law it has never been found i did the research council did the research even the commission cited poll there's never been a case where somebody had a work injury treated at home the condition got worse and that was intervening i just created a bad law for at least my people my clients and for that reason i think this has to be a legal issue this can't be it and less you're going to say this is the direction sorry of illinois other of law issue becomes problematic but i do want to head down something else here we hear the phrase things from out it didn't constitute an intervening cause isn't the standard and i think it's more than mere words independent intervening it independent in the sense that what he did was out of related to the condition he found himself in his result of the accident so i think the independent is an important factor is it that it is that absolutely or even the meaning gone with doctors and the all nine intervening situation all related to work who moved from how sure of that would have gotten right but the nature of blisters can always get that was the natural consequence of blisters is that there's always a possibility that it can be infected what i was surprised by was the number of cases that you've addressed both all past mendota that the commission following intervening acts and it had to be corrected by the appellate courts either based on manifest weight or based on a noble law that they're not intervening and the standard truly is if the work injury plays a role in the ultimate condition it's always been found to be work related t i become the demanded back i feel very comfortable at my client that in this case was very appropriate unfortunate but very appropriate but that that i never read one thousand nine hundred the case that's stood for the proposition when somebody has this kind of behavior when they when they're issues that were raised in to be of our very ultimately the court has looked at this through this lands in the past in the caterpillar case which we cited in section two b of our brief and also in the fermi national excel aerated lab case which we cited in that section in fact in the fermi lab case went through in substantial detail cite d larsen for the proposition that it was going to consider whether or not there was intentional or negligent kind of conduct which broke the causal chain pulling that o ultimately what the court decided it was a gentleman was on crutches he's trying to get he tried to traverse a wet floor in the bath and he went back and the court held that this was not in the court said independent somebody develops a work related blister is intervening cause and somebody then decides to let's how was that independent of the original work related well in answering the court's first question first there was outlined you know brief in other words you have a constellation of facts here this is not an ordinary gentleman lanc attempting to traverse a wet floor with the crutches and all that record of that we determine that there wasn't enough well why are those people well because under the this constellation of facts this is a determination that's my question before the commission you never argued there is that correct it not are you that you argued injurious practices are you causation and injuries the fact that you have a list or does not mean that you're going to get infected in other words a blister does not say cause and infection and so it was appropriate for the commission to find that this act that the petitioner in a g m was a game changer and i'd like to in they have respect go to section two way of my in other words what the court looked at there and the reason i cited those cases there are different sample rugen carpet involved to injuries to the elbow national freight involved back injury to d subsequent events and what was the holding near the by the well in those cases your honor the court ultimately reason that there was subsequent intervening because all cases what's most important bio review summarize the the rug in the carpet it was living up here in the court looked at what are the downstream affects and went back to say is this an intervening cause in other words single proposition it be a new independent intervening cause only because he did it and it occurs to me that i mean i don't think that did versus a physician who did it all creates a separate intervening cause it appears if you argue contributory negligence well if your honor my response to that would be and this this is one to let me ask another question you know suppose he saw the list been there and he did nothing but he can't walk enough sure and he's walking on it at home or whatever and the blister pops blisters pop with or without an act by somebody and it does create a portal for infection but is that an independent intervening as well you're an american how it pops on the coast testimony plaintiff's expert points out that any laceration puncture or anything like that of the skin can create a portal in infection and even a mild diabetic so in response i think to the question you asked yeah that evidence would so it would be absolutely contrary to even dr who lands under sterile conditions in an you know work related  hospital environment where proper care is taken but no i mean obviously even diabetics sometimes need done related surgery for example i mean they might need their appendix out or whatever the case is and you got to do it but you do it in a hospital with a doctor in a sterile i'm operating so my time is up thank you for let me thank you  i'm just a couple responses back to co found that my client condition is mild is diabetic and she smiled her just want to make sure i mentioned that it wasn't out of control i submit to you that if my client went to the doctor said this case was not accepted from the onset but if it was accepted i would submit that there's a very strong possibility the company would say we're not paying those medical bills without resort necessary to read a doctor for a minor blistery should have done this yourself at home i confront those issues all the time various cases and that's another argument companies make that the treatment itself had he gone to a doctor could have been found to be not medically necessary or reasonable and my final point is that and i didn't get a chance to say this initially every case that's been cited including the commission cite a bobo awarded benefits every case to the claimants every case cited by counsel caterpillar case national craves central rug from the national accelerator all the warded benefits to the claimants there's not one case that's been presented to you were benefits were not paid as a result and awarded the two cases that council mentions national freighted central rug the issue was which employer which insurance company was responsible there was still question the claimant was receiving benefits in the caterpillar case that counsel reference it related brightest wrist injury in which he then went to a farm unrelated to work and reinjured his hand on the farm and just like what we've been talking about today by for the initial accident the court found that the ultimate condition wouldn't have occurred so they awarded benefits in that case so in every case and specifically i just quoted that the appellate court in the caterpillar case cited by caterpillar states that the