ory and in fact if say i bring an appeal out and i don't decide that i no longer want to prosecute their appeal my opposing counsel can object and continue forth with bat appeal and actually when i was arguing before that the judge i mean i was very clear and certain with him that he was not dismissing the other appeal because i was going to object to that being dismissed because i would have taken over that appeal at that point and what issues the pla that's correct and that's and then bring those issues of that's correct that is what the case law states that says that there is but for one when a social order and it was never contemplated that crossed appeal should be taken by the parties now do i think you have to raise it at some point before the court and say to them hey i'm also bringing up these appeals now you know now that this really is before you absolutely every dad i don't think there's any question i think that they were certainly raised before the court the quote was well aware of the different about that i waver i think it's different than a forfeiture and waiver is a judicial construct that you can always say no i think you've waived this argument you didn't bring that up and i do think i mean i think that the rules are different and at a different stage yes and so when the bond was challenge to an affidavit was presented that said you know i am by release key i am the president of this corporation and i have the authority to financially bind the corporation and that affidavi the claim well because the order in the by the court is clear is that they are affirming the commission's decision which by an effective means all of its decision it's not just we don't just a job i gree with you i'm saying that when the record comes before them it's the whole record that's before and then it's the issues that are raised by the parties so well it seems to me like if your appeal was completely dismissed  that appeal was not dismissed that it was in fact ruled upon and that the circuit court judge confirmed the commission of the decision whether it emanated from my filing of the circuit court of appeals or whether it says the court here by terms the decision of the commission may differ from the entire decision of the commission may i be straightforward to define the commission's decision so at that point that's a final judgment whether that final argument off and motions do you know this having been given the credit having been heard oral argument and being fully advising the premise jurisdiction you didn't do your other issues would have been decided and you wouldn't be able to appeal those issues to this court because they were cited because your appeal was dismissed but you say if the claimant files you know cross appeal are also filed an appeal to the circuit court on any issue that's come even if your appeal is dismissed then you still preserve your issues to come up here and we just forget about the fact that your appeal is dismissed i mean if we get past it i mean if we think or e i myself as the employer could come in and advice the court of any issues that i felt needed to be addressed by the court i don't need to file my own writ assertion or e to do that because only things tell us why we have only one thing in the in this case and that's but the circuit court took into consideration the merits of both her appeal and my appeal and this is best moralize if we read actually paragraph three of the order the court try out just as the sake suggest a stereotype response to you it's in section one thousand and one it's in the first paragraph at the very last and it says the circuit court of the county where the accident occurred shall by some ends to the commission have power to review all questions  act that invest discretion in the commission to suspend or reduce compensation when the claimant fails to cooperate with a reasonably essential medical treatment to promote his recovery let me ask you why there was never a nineteen pretty and so my my entire brief and i'm sure you will review that is that dr forays may be a doctor and that he's licensed but he's not an expert and he was never qualified to treat it to provide testimony as it related to traumatic brain injury which is a reasonable claim of supposed to do go out and start prospecting all over the hills of that it's not checking credentials this was the employer in this case for three years off treatment over and over and over again with traumatic brain injury specialist we provided payment at claimants request we provided names of doctors that were outside of the rehabilitation institute of chicago which is where doctors only came from who was the head of the traumatic brain injury center there this was a case where the employer spent three years trying to get appropriate treatment to declaim it with a traumatic brain injury specialist this is not a broken toe this is not you know not to hurt and this is a very tragic injury that needs very specialized treatment and by the end of all of this at the trial date on the trial date doctors only had recommended that he needed and certainly reasonable for him and me not the act does call for different to very views and having reasonable and it's certainly reason for him to want to treat with dr florence but that doesn't mean that the employer should have to pay for it and that's the saying that you can reduce or suspend compensation because there is all this treatment out there that is available to a very specific injury a traumatic brain injury that has been offered over and over and over again by the greenman of that by the end of the trial and even and i appreciate that miss hellman is not a doctor but she was claimants vocational expert who said the claimant should undergo the treatment as recommended by doctors only because then i can get a better understanding of his abilities so every person said he needed care other than dr forrest and that's why i'm saying it was unreasonable for him not to not take that treatment i'm not saying it's going to cure him i'm just saying he should be  know you're going to take into consideration his reduced capacity his his reduced capacity is that when he testified at trial he'd like to have some treatment it would make him better and all the doctors other doctor for a raise recommended this so yes i mean he did testify to that at trial but his reduced capacity is due to the exact fact that he hasn't had any carrier for this warble injury because he's been under the care of doctor for his who honestly for three years although he's done this seen him once a week and provided him with zoloft that is all he has done for three years nothing else other than that and doctors only in his recommended specific care which the employer repeatedly authorized throughout this case  traumatic brain injury and and that is what the employees position has always been it's not this is an approach in tow this is not a battle of the experts it's that the claimant is entitled to this at this treatment and employers been offering