may please the court opposing counsel my name is rachel kaplan and i represent the c t a the question presented today is whether a claim it can recover under the mental mental theory when she delayed seeking medical treatment for seventy one city makes two arguments today first that claimant cannot recover and a very stringent standards for mental mental recovery under illinois law and secondly that allowing recovery here would essentially open the floodgates  know courts have rarely allowed claims to recover under the mental model theory is janitor recovery under that theory is that an individual experience a sudden severe emotional shock resulting in an garters the claim it's going to be quiet nothing to do with right regardless of what the claimant thinks the claim here did not show that she suffered from a sudden severe emotional shock because she waited more than steamy to seventy one days you'd receive medical treatment if the they are the individual who receive the emotional shock fainted immediately upon examination is that the only two cases where mental mental recovery has been allowed in the state of illinois eithe and in both of those cases the plaintiff sat and received immediate medical treatment and she also received an immediate psychiatric or psychological diagnosis for example as you are imagine papen a case that after retrieving her coworkers hand pathfinder court talked about the importance of having objective manifestations of psychic injuries because it talked about how psychic injuries can be very easily barricaded or exaggerated and mental injury medicare over a period of weeks or months in the normal course of employment that is not this case this is us as a specific incident where the claim in this is suggesting that she suffered from a mental injury from a specific date nevertheless the c are says she still has not met the standards because there is no medical documentation nor is there any indication the records that she did in fact suffer from a seventy three and if so why are better documentation under pathfinder it suggests very clearly that there needs treat the claim in here but it occurs seventy one days after the incident ok so you're issue is not whether she has proved that she did suffer from some psychological injury you're saying it didn't happen immediately  a diagnosis that if she didn't go there but if she with a week later it would be within this court's discretion if you mean whether or not there was a sudden severe emotional impact based on the timing of any particular case but in the didn't she say she was shaken and a little depressed no that happened and the evening when she was returned to a chair so you were going i take it would be that shaken in a womb the press doesn't sound like a sudden severe emotional shock yes that now is that sh but also nowhere in the claim as priests below does she even argue that that that she had a reaction that was severe this case it here front from virtually all the other cases you'll hear this term because the employer offered no hold on the dance at arbitration not no for the employer the testimony of sylvia thames in one rebuy there are two which opposing counsel is going to say well so what he doesn't need as a matter of law the standards because there was no manifestation for seventy one days and there's no immediate evidence of any trauma we disagree we say she did have a sudden severe emotional shock we say they had for two reasons her words and the actions of the supervisor what are her words i was shaken and a little depressed it's true she didn't say i was severely shaken she said i was shaken so your condition some disability that's later on in the pathfinder i think with psychological injuries it's a problem because this deal with post traumatic stress is you have to have time to have recurrent dreams you have to have time to for these images to recur and it gets typically the case when you cease psychological reports it's a anxiety disorder because it takes under the d for a certain amount of time t k our posture manic stress disorder it doesn't get diagnosed for six months is it frivolous to appeal with no evidence is it from us to appeal after you've stipulated to contact between the c t a boss and the passenger mentor and then mentor was dead on arrival at structure in the relative scale of things isn't catholic as bad as it gets or uses a frivolous are you arrested for saying no i am not asking for sanctions this was a explaining there are words that are relative they're always followed by enough suddenly enough or severe enough and this i think is leading state circuit court took it away based on this notion that there had to be some sort of physical contact so the issue that was before the court really for the first time was whether or not you had to help physical injury when the you could have a psychological injury standing alone in the supreme court looked at a lot of case law from multiple jurisdictions and they waited and they decided that you did not need to ha physical injury that a psychological injury standing alone was sufficient to make the decision that the discovery of the severed hand was sudden and severe and shocking but i think a response of justice hudson question from a few minutes ago i think you said bed when the expression sudden severe emotional shock is used that sudden does not modify shock of the petitioner ah how did she feel i felt shaken also all the actions of the supervisor the supervisor rather for saw that i was upset any handed me a card f situation in my view where it's an example of delay deny don't pay and then wreaks havoc in the lives of living breathing human beings that have  injuries thank you we respectfully request that you are from the decision boyle and remanded to the commission for further proceedings you know what opinion retrospectively that she had suffered this shark from this bus accident and as a result she has certain psychological visions isn't that independent medical verification in question