commission based solely on a finding that the issue was one of law over which you have primary jurisdiction where the player you presented no evidence that the equitable issues presented by the circumstances of the case best given the circumstances you have to bring justice to the parties and this particular case mr bernadino is seeking in nineteen b motion which is an immedia holding in that i think it is this to allow an insurance company or a trial court to stop the ability of an employee in to obtain one is admitted benefits under the a do is to allow the insurance carrier in the event that they find with grave their or probable cause that there is a violation of the contract to go to the circuit court and in this case it's about money in the event that they go forward on either the representation under a reservation of rights don't they can always come back under the worker's compensation and including their money from indicates that it is the worker's compensation commission has the authority to make a determination as to whether or not insurance is valid they have to go through a process they have to submit the declaration to address that issue and the trial is that interesting i'm saying that is an interpretation of a statute that by the terms of the statute grants the you know workers compensation commission the authority a few reasons one is that i can find it did make arguments before the court concerning the fact that their words harm no harm i try to make an argument that decor can retain jurisdiction while i'm on forward in front of the workers compensation so that my time you could obtain benefits under the act so i was attempting to you know pushed towards the waiting analysis but it did not go forward arguments at the lower court you can use that there was also an issue and standard of review be plentiful pelini argue that the standard of review or just took it for granted that the standard of review in this favors my client they head up an adequate remedial law they can get the money back in the event they have to go for a reservation of the rights can these two proceedings go on at the same time i made that argument and i stay the proceedings go forward in the worker's compensation case that in itself was due a natural process along them under section i really nineteen g s to go through the three panel commissions after the i motioned to him that order is looked at by the court because the court is a bad time then extend it to any buying workers compensation commission and that i had to apply to the court in order to go to the workers compensation commission for determination by the court to whether or not they had primary jurisdiction again now you have the lotion pending and believe to supplement that is correct judgment is that what is that there was so motions or briefing regarding that motion which included additional happy attachments and an affidavit filed by west bend insurance on her writing the court heard very brief argument and then position wouldn't think oh they are yes right so then you are a party that would be and any party i believe has a right to either appeal first by exhaustion of remedies or there might be a direct appeal conducting a conclusive analysis there was a hearing in hastings this the trial that the appellate court relied upon it and as it says an in depth theory on the issue of cancellation and primary jurisdiction on its face does not allow for a trial court on general jurisdiction to impair or indeed in the straightest special jurisdiction court different the irreparable harm is different the tests change because we're not seeking medical benefits you will find i could not find a case where if someone arrives give me a trial court sta eight nineteen be proceeding that's why i think this really would be very limited we don't want to open the door to insurance carriers stopping the ability of an employee to obtain the benefits which the illinois