what justice is counsel my name is jim kelly i'm here for the on behalf of the appellant employer this is not to suggest that indeed the justices need a warm up but this is a good case to start with because i think it's a very simple case very straightforward issue and frankly a slam dunk this is a case that the employer wanted arbitration and won at the commission level it was two accidents essentially a lot of load fell on a truck driver and then he returned in april of two thousand and six when he returned back to work and had a brief exacerbation in october of two to this whole issue in this is whether the arbitrator was correct and the commission was correct in future medical treatment any any additional medical issue and if we went back to the arbitrator at this the two things that are ordered justice are two there and paragraphs two and three here and it says exactly what they do pay these bills and authorizes care by these two doctors i don't know what else they would what else the commission would have moment but if he says the decision of the workers compensation mission is reversed there is no more decision it's done it's finished it's gone well i read this order to  the things that were forward are paragraphs that he's reversing are as to paragraph two and three because there were any other issues in the case off a t v station was not an issue all medical was paid these are the only two issues in the case and so the commission there's nothing else to do to go back to your original question and so the it's if we go back and operate this treatment after this person has surgeries or not or whatever and then have to kind of try to decision was correct in the circuit court reversed what the the the the way the judge wrote this order is that he did not believe that there were sufficient findings of fact by the commission and then he indicated he did not believe that there were inferences drawn from the legal conclusions that support a legal conclusion that's what if you read his order that's what his problem was with the commission's decision so when you look at  this order and i know you were all justices from all over the state of course you go from here into rockford throughout my twenty years of doing this this is not a bad order in terms of she she spent seventeen what he said on direct and this doesn't make sense because of x y and z she sent the size and all of these facts and doing a wonderful job of going through all the evidence if you go back and forth back and forth she's taken snippets of testimony from thousands of pages of have to be saying that it was not again it was not clearly in line was it not it was not because of all these things that we're talking about this is the guy bit returned back to work in april two thousand and seven after his through work a yes you're compensated for these two instead accident but your conditions have resolved your back where you were before you even showed up at the employer's place of business that's exactly right and that this and that this circuit is making some please the court mr pelly and he's jim kenny i represent david hare and this worker's compensation case and i too it crippled with the issue of whether or not this was properly here at this point time whether or not jurisdiction it properly that's the i'm doing just to do we are going to i thought that i thought it was supposed to go back to the commission for the commission to make some additional decision but we were here  well i'm going to defer to what this panel decides in terms of jurisdiction i'm not smart enough to let me ask you another question is there is there still disputed t t d in other words did you get all the t v t t d you thought you should have been entitled to from the arbitrator yeah we did we did ok and what we what we did not get was the medical expenses that we submitted and creature made right and the judge ordered that shrill and told again my question is what is there left for the commission to do on this one thousand would be the commission is to do several things first and foremost they have to enforce whatever this werder is they have to will they have to require that the respondent pay the outstanding medical bills is the it was presented at the time of the one thousand be hearing is there any issue out there that hasn't been decided by the circuit quite i believe so because that your slate he had made some recommendations in terms of a directed course of treatment it needs to be followed and then it has n surgery for the c five c six level where we had compression fractures and some type of a society older thesis so he found that there was final instability at those levels and you know they had a circuit judge and i suppose that it's not i know that one of the problems that the judge the peril he had with this situation was the workers compensation commission and their conclusions of law made specific findings about what my client's injuries were what we have to understand is that on april twenty sixth they have it's pulling off a strap and a load of balconies falls directly on top of the said sufficient force to cause any medical care for three years with regard to the neck prior to the april twenty sixth two thousand and six accident so from my perspective the decision of the owner of workers compensation commission is it's not it's existed in the act prior to april of two thousand and six you know what was the quasi civil rights of the genitive condition it's something that occurs naturally but he did say that based upon his review of the because he didn't divulge certain information on his employment application they can do that absolutely they can do it in the a clue why ok but if you look at it this accident didn't happen because the president of the company was there present at the hearing she was never called this report a witness she didn't rebuttal refute anything that was said by david parent terms of what work he was able to do for the company you know what i thought was this is kind of characterise this nation bring cervical neck pain shortly after the able to twenty six rather than a month later you know that sort of damaging your case yeah i suppose that it is but when you look at what the factual basis is at the time of of these complaints talking about earlier on in this jurisdiction a question about the the fact that the issue of causation has the arbitrator found in aggravation so this whole nonsense about they didn't get my client credence for a dietitian that's what i'm a traitor hagan bond and aggravation if you read her she says the medical records establish the petitioner has a longstanding history of preexisting neck and back conditions and treatment the medical records confirm the petitioner suffered aggravations a new ok exactly right so so all that talk about those issues is just absolutely moot and the thing about the credibility is this it came down to the then these current symptoms today at the time of arbitration that's why his credibility was an issue because we've got a guy that's got to explain in my back to my pre injury state and my back to that or not that he's trying to he's trying to lie and say no i'm not i have this restriction now but we've got to get out of him and i don't drag  in cross examination that he actually pulled back and say you had this exact same restriction for even went to our lawyer so she picked up on the back and he was trying to manipulate the system that's where the credibility not only didn't take into account is pretty distinct that's where the liar part came in and this notion and i learned this before this notion that he worked for five months keep in mind he was on the south bad his condition was he was offered three years before coming to our employer for these very same issues neck and back off three years so it's disingenuous to say he had no no problems working he wasn't working then he worked for five months crime ploy or not i think about that for a second before he suffered to work accidents then he goes back to work in april two thousand and seven and from april two thousand and seven until the present day he's working full duty as a truck driver so i mean to me as he has returned back to his pre injury state those are the things that we are trying to was looking at his credibility about saying he needs treatment because of these two exacerbat he recommended where the exact same injections that were recommended before i ever came to work for us and had not happened to you were coming anything else in for the conservative just conservative care of the same type and i think i pointed this out throughout the prof the same t