that signature was contract it's interesting because if you look at the agreement between the claimant and the company occur contract repeatedly is referred to as the claimant being an employee and if you look at the st part of being hired by a company and being employed by them versus being assigned out to another place such as a hospital tell us why she was not in employee of the corporation that's because she  i understand i am an employee of respond that the company called on quote what does that mean won't there always has to be a last act of the formation of a contract there always has to be offered septmonts consideration that's fine if you've got terms a contract of a contract doesn't come into fruition until something you satisfied and it's a condition proceed to the formation of a contract and the contract is formally satisfied what is it in this case relationship goes no further the individual cannot be placed in any assignment was one of response clients and must she signs the contract so if you have to sign the contract with turn then the company  nurse i respectfully submit and i'm trying to keep my arguments brief that the average traitor and decommission got it right in this case when they said there are basically just two questions number one is what is a contract to fire and number two is where was it made because we're dealing with an executed contract a prior person was actually working for her employer and as far as what the issue was before this court i think it's a very simple one is whether there is evidence in the record to support the finding of the commission that the contract of hire was the document petitioner's exhibit one and that baker deposition exhibit two into a two a was a one page modification with a change the assignment dates where both the claimant library in lockport illinois which signature had the effect of a handwritten signature by another agreement that she had signed which was in the record and then document already been signed by the  lawyer the employer had forwarded to mr tyler as the conditions of employment from them it was the document she worked under i don't believe i really responded the employer's document and that was what they forwarded to here and that was the only document that any party to this case either by the evidence or the conditional intentions in any brief suggest she was it's construed against the drafter but in any event where that language appears about adequate candidate for employment is under background checks and is very consistent with the fact that she's an employee because a background check is to consider whether a purchase a background check of whether a person is an adequate candidate for employment and that can actually be done before a person  is hired after person is hired it can be done by can take after person actually starts their job and if that employment background check comes back negatively they can be escorted off the premises the fact that they are doing a background check to check the whether the person is an appropriate candidate for employment is not necessarily inconsistent with a very contract language state and multiple times that she was an employee  yes a plan signing this contract which was a national contract was disinfect assignments as justice hudson stated and in answer to the question who is she employee of one of the things that that working for arias requires by accepting assignments at a variety of locations possibly nationwide i also understand that the entire united states is my labor force so i don't think the contract could be any clearer and again that is the contract all parties agree she was working under at the time she was hurt and again as far as in answer your question about the signature of contract under section one b two  contract can be expressed as i respectfully submit it is here and especially when the parties operate under whether one of them signs it or not or it can even be implied you don't even need a contract and then if it's an apply tantric you have to figure out where the contract was made and that's probably harder i think in a written contract probably as easy as it gets because one person signs it the obligations are fixed the money case actually makes it clear that  the only issue is where the contract was made nothing else and that's what the commission found i mean we're dealing with a sixty two year old art nurse she had a career in shoulder injury at the hospital south bend she'd been in illinois residences making seventy six she they want her in the stable so this is accomplishing the purposes of the staffing company and their staffing companies are much more common these days than ever that agreement is complete  in every aspect of an employment agreement and it requires things beyond just the hospital south enterprise communications for future assignments with the staff person at arias it doesn't make their she's not in the hospital so so the employment contract with the omaha company correct absolutely makes very clear she's not an employee of the hospital in the st page of the country so all of these conditions of licensure are being accepted by these hospitals but his personal background checks are conditioned through an assignment of an employee who is an employee of the indiana chant trick when clearly biased language it's not and they're basically asking you to rewrite section one b two because the only question in section want to be two is where was the contract made and it was clearly made in illinois and both witnesses agree to it so that is the crux of it affect they're going to do a background check to see whether he's an adequate candidate for employment isn't inconsistent with that because that's what a background check does and that can happen at any time during the course of hiring contract the catch it was made there when it's written and i think it's the easiest of of the two when it signed or when it oral or wife's implied when there's an offer an acceptance something that makes the last act to make a binding agreement and all the conditions that they talk about are conditions arising out of the prima because the binding agreement exists foh basically that's that's in a nutshell as far  as mr baker's vital testimony in this case let me refer to the reply brief page ten where they state that the employee points specifically to the speaker's disk deposition testimony in which he suggested that the indiana license as administrative however miss baker is a lay person and this interpretation is inconsistent with the plain reading of the act in other words they really want it both ways what she does know about is what it takes to get an indiana license because that's what she does for work she helps people through the process they don't want you to believe in that testimony that is ministerial yet her testimony as a non lawyer with no input in the language of disagreement whatsoever other than to fill in the assignment parts of it that's absolutely vital for the commission to make this decision when the plane an ordinary language of the contract is in front of them and the contract really has no ambiguity whatsoever and in depth that's basically the case and i'm not shall i far as the importance of issuing the the license i think if i were to call somebody at the indiana board of nursing and say thanks for making this contract worse when you issued a license i get a big h because that doesn't make a contract it produces a license do you need a license to be a nurse in indiana yeah you do but that doesn't preclude a contract before as happens very frequently as miss baker testified to so i think it's well within the abuse of discretion standard that the commission said we don't need to hear from mistake or to decide this case and again i think the issue before you is whether there's evidence in the record i've cited the saddler case that really deals with all the issues and contracts you know them anyway