have been put on inquiring notice or notice of some kind to start looking into this thing that somebody else may have been responsible if somebody else at his this case the main kicker in this case is that this case we later took it over but we were not the original workers comp counsel i don't remember the name of the law firm that he st saw and they filed a worker's comp case i mean this is a pattern for workers comp lawyers to make sure that they're they figure out whether or not there's a rd party action that's available to the injured employee it it is are are frequently yes that's true and i know in our office we often look into if we think there is an issue of a rd party action but there was nothing i think that is in the mind of mr swartz that said bad conduct by some other entity was involved in this thing i've ever seen even when he came back to also that osho was out to investigate and he sees that the switch has been moved now so that it's right next to them she actually i don't know when he saw it all i know is from his if even from what he told us that he was told by a different coworker of several months after he came back he came back to see intrude as soon it's oh i came back the following june and then a different coworker told him the switch had been moved in learned the switch had been moved after he came back to work in june of two thousand and sixteen and was told the switch had been moved in october let me point out one thing he was he did not go back to that machine when he did come back to work i think they made him a janitor instead so are you close i don't think he with the male hand and fingers and missing fingers he couldn't do whatever it was he did before on the french machine so they make him a janitor instead so i don't know usa i can i'm going back to my my initial question if he didn't go back to the machine a lot but he was told the switch was and you in october of two thousand and seventeen so if the see if she starts to run let's just say he was told switches move to date came back to work which is it so he went about it like several months later  he knew if he did not know he he filed as quickly very quickly after he was st put together if there was an electrical contractor involved in this thing and very quickly after we know is that there was no way he had no knowledge of any of these facts until after he returned to work a year later but that he hired a lawyer soon after the accident to the western lawyers so the question known then you should have filed a legal malpractise case i did i don't necessarily want to go there i don't know what the lawyer was told i don't want to go there either but the point the point of the matter is that he got injured you have serious injury there was investigation done there was some kind of problem with the switching and everybody sits on their hands and waits to file until after two years well it was he didn't know there was a problem with the switching and i think even this guy as a layman he has even when he was toll the switches in the other room he didn't know that was a bad thing or a defective thing in and of himself an it's it's pretty much common sense that's a problem i'm not willing to go as far as to say that that makes this wrongful or even that he knows the  anybody other than weber his employer who he can't sue and his and their misconduct is not a wrongful cause as a matter of law there any misconduct and he knows of he knew misconduct of any rd party at aua at any time before he returned to work even for a significant time after he returned to work all he knew was that he got hurt on the job and when he st came back he heard of bad acts by weber employees and he everybody here knows or understands the anything that's attributable to the conduct of the employer  if it's removed from tort law which is the way the worker's compensation act is treated in this s he says such is kelsey have said for many many times that the him that the employee gives up his rights to file tort claim in exchange for a certain remedy so the only thing that has to be played out in a very is to be proved is that he was injured arising out of it and in the course of his employment who did it who was negligent if anybody was negligent ah that is not an inquiry therefore whatever the boss did or the coworker did it's not a wrongful act as a matter of law it is it's so you know his attorney his original worker's comp attorney is absolved from asking the question how did this happen i can't say he's a absolved but i have to look from if the state of mind of my client to go swirls and he didn't know and he and he didn't communicate because he had no such knowledge to those workers comp lawyer all he knew  was the machine came on and even when he went back to work but you heard the bad good bad behavior was his only coworkers i know it's often don't possess the entirety of the knowledge that their lawyers on when they investigate and we don't leave it up when a when a client hires a lawyer they say oh yes go see what i can do about this injury and we don't then say  well let me ask you never started well let me look at it this way with regard to the water i don't know that i came peut when this man goes to his higher cost and and signs up he signs a worker's compensation kind create the the employer employee real relationship in a worker's compensation is also governed by the act and you don't sign any general representation but every single worker's comp lawyer out there in the city of chicago who syas up a client for worker's compensation claim knows that he or she has to look into whether mad somebody else might be responsible for matt the employer because the damage is recover circumstances are larger than you could ever be expected in the workers kept pace i handle these cases for almost thirty years ok here this is this is the basics the absolute basics and what you're suggesting is is that it's problem i'd have if i were to sue the former counsel for for legal malpractise for not searching he's going to say he didn't hire me to do a personal injury case he hardly toward the strap case i have no contract is in a way what the lawyer knew or should have known to mr suarez i don't think that's fair to mr swire it was the case referred to you by the lawyer that he's now up with no it was not definitely not referred to that to us by that lawyer and for that matter i think mr suarez originally came to us you know in part to take over his worker's comp case it was not we actually i don't think to this day i'm think we have  issue affecting or we can be decided by the finder of fact i think the issues here suggest it's not on especially if we're looking at the state of mind of some guy who the other lawyer who isn't even he did find out about it he's not he's only me and i don't think he and i don't think he's a real educated person he ran a fudge machine and now he cleans a factory and and  the fact that the case was that the injury was sudden and traumatic which is the main point of the defense are one case wackiness is indicating that that's no say oh i got aristide later therefore my stitching limitations doesn't run the day to the ex and even though she went to the doctor on the day the ex and it runs the date the arias d was discovered and ah and that's a injury might have been wrongfully caused not by a coworker that by his employer that's what we're talking about there's nothing that would have put this man as a reasonable not particularly educated lame man i party was bad you know he's a red herring for sure that webber was bad ah well it might help somebody reasonably discover whether matter any other entity was possibly to blame that would for him to do that and i'm i guess we're trying to question is whether or not reasonable person might have you know asked a couple questions how did this happen he did and he was told mr serrano told mr sarno to turn on the machine that's how  party actor or a bad conduct by a rd party actor are not just op ed at the very least truck on the premises and i think there must have been more to it than that because i don't think it was looking like a delivery truck insurance at all tough may have had some words indicate they were the electrical contractor and this with that at this point yeah he says a reasonable man when he comes into knowledge he had time and that's exactly what happened at that point in time he came into some knowledge  questions and learned things he didn't know before about is him seeing a particular entity where months before he knew or should have known th switch was in another room and after his accident it was moved to right next to the machine you know well that's something that he was st learning about roughly one year before  suit it's my understanding of the law that that's when the state should begins to run is that day that you might if that's the day when the stage begins to run then and he data discovery doesn't stand your limitations period i think we see those cases all the time because it's odd that they created for this kind of case the statute  nath and i don't think it's fair to look into the mind of a of his lawyer notwithstanding what his lawyer maybe could of or should have done because as i said mr s signed a contract with the former counsel to do a worker's compensation case and he can't is going to come back if i were to sue him and ways they have workers compensation or present station agreement in our face and sa he didn't hire me to do with rd party action he hired me to do worker's comp and i did worker's comp and so it's not easy to say to him pop to he has i represent living the same because we're in the same boat we do the same the same thing that we that lawyers typically workers comp lawyers do we often investigate rd party action information becomes available the burden is on the interim person to acquire further is to the existence of cause of action that's the liberal versus weimer case which is sort of you know when did bad information come into his possession that's a question of fa and that's why i think it was premature to dismiss this case at this point types that's normally when when it wasn't of it wasn't available he couldn't find this information out a reasonable person i don't know the court of it's when did it come into his possession as a reasonable person and not as a guy who's in i didn't knowledgeable enough understand how a lawyer in a camp case i know that they have strew but the fact that his lawyer didn't do these things should not be imposed on mr suarez who is sitting home recovering and believe that it was only the bad conduct of webber or that something that happened at webber and had no knowledge of any rd party wrong through or odd during the eleven months he sed he was at home recovering from his injury then went pers he was even referred to  psychological counseling with badly mangled and he couldn't go back and do what he did and then when he did come back he was made a janitor ah and only then started to ask questions and when he asked those questions is he a st only learned of conduct by whether people he didn't ask questions he did behave as a reasonable person and the faith that there was a rd party wrong who was very slow in coming to them and does not have to identify who the wrongful howdy was out in the knox case which cited the briefs route we call it refers to the point at which the injured party fire sufficient information regarding the injury in its cause to the course of help the greater the parties on notice of what to investigate the seriousness of the injury by the seriousness of the injury and i mean the there is rather is wrongfully cause me four days of the injury but that doesn't mean that another player flipped the switch well how do you know that they didn't know that because this was in their affidavit that's what they stated here two minutes ago when you're playing just personal injury and i did this for twenty nine years i could bench you could a case of this magnitude a worker's comp case you have an absolute duty to investigate whether there's a rd party and when i look at the i walk out of my office and i slip on the floor and i think that i slipped on my employer's floor and therefore don't bring an action against him for two years but in year three i find out that the horror that i slipped down was actually maintained by the building i don't have a cross section yes the building because i didn't do my due diligence to find out who on the property mr schwarz didn't know who flipped that switch whether it was an independent contractor whether than by the machine itself can set for twenty seven months and not investigate to determine who put the switch and now the question is when he knew or should have known about the rd party which is a question affect that's how the losses oh no quote just because it's caused by your own employer doesn't take it out of the realm of being wrong cost and employer could have been named as a rd party in contribution i disagree with the fact that the the rule is the particular benefit in industrial accident for the parties responsible may be the plaintiffs employer who immunize himself by the workers comp so to twenty four hours the turning on the switch till after he came back to work eleven months later what he knew when he went to see their workers comp lawyer is that is is that he got hurt at work yeah and that's al is one hundred percent correct but it is does not get st of all i don't know that there's any law that says that when you hire a lawyer for worker's comp that he automatically is has a duty to invest if their party claims and i don't think it's even implied in any manner in the in turning client greenock that has to be filed with every worker are you trying to suggest that it's not the custom in practice a worker comp community injured parties lawyers to investigate the possibility of a more financially lucrative beneficial cause of action for their client that is one hundred percent true but whether or not it's their custom and practice can be imposed as putting knowledge in mr suarez's head it's a completely different thing and i don't even know what the end matter of whether their custom and practice make stay up lawyer duty bound as a matter of law to do that yes i have one hundred percent agree with justice their point that it is the custom and practice that we do it ourselves i don't think you'd be very hard given expert in a case like that is i don't know if there's i use fact as an expert i mean you know be pretty easy to find out what i'm wondering is i don't know if there's any case law that says that their custom and practice rises to the level of being lutie america do your research or you know i'm just i that's just my perception here on this on this point but one point i wan f of that there was any negligent conduct causing in the way medical malpractise caused electical he was a long time really bad diabetic and so he thought it was his underlying condition to cause the loss  nd element the wrongful causation has not been satisfied and the statute does not begin to run and that is the same thing here we only wrong to word it was known to the mind fact to determine a thank you thank you both for your arguments and we will take the matter under her eyes and stand in