the decision should be reviewed at the noble by the side of the court as it was a question of law secondly the commission's award perspective right carpal tunnel surgery and cervical physical therapy should also be reinstated as this was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and should have been affirmed by the circuit court saying the review should be no vote as the review should be to know as applies to the causal connection findings of the bind up bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as well as the c because you and your opponent seem to disagree so that would be a question was it will be a question of what we're finding well i believe that my point and i both agree that the circuit court misapplied the law the case by case of a lot of case i contract my point and i both agree that the decision of the commission was that the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and the server going juries were causally related to the original accident physician which we agree with as the second circuit appellate court in irizarry stated when an issue was once litigated and decided that should be the end of the matter for all subsequent stages of the case and the case was retried a second time simply on the matter of additional temporary total disability benefits and perspective medical treatment and some one in medical bills the circuit court in its decision stated  that the original finding but by the commission was that there was insufficient proof or evidence to support a cause of action for the specific injuries the claim was litigated a second time not on the question of cause of action but on the question of perspective medical commission and its second decision was very clear in summing up what it found in the first decision stating and to quote the prior testimonial evidence and documentary evidence referred to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and cervical spine symptoms the issue of causation or titian errors by a little purple tunnel syndrome and cervical spine symptoms has been litigated decided and settled for all subsequent stages of this case therefore this is the law of the case  when you take that as totality we believe that the second issue is that the award of perspective right carpal tunnel surgery and cervical physical therapy should also be reinstated as this was not against the man as weight of the evidence and  as well settled the questions of the causal relationship of medical care to work related injury are questions of fact to be resolved by the commission there are no time limits of when a and your claimant may go to trial or request related treatment as the confusion again in this case stems from the original decision where the arbitrator erroneous lee awarded right carpal tunnel surgery which had not yet been prescribed by the treating physicians this is the issue that was corrected by the commission in the first trial  by the commission the right couple tunnel was awarded by the arbitrator but the commission correctly stated that it cannot award that right carpal tunnel as it had not yet and prescribe the obligation for a respondent to pay for related medical treatment does not cease simply because a matter has been tried and an order has been made for compensation on accrued medical expenses their obligations has not ceased at that point  again in this case that bar the respondent or the appellee i'm sorry agrees there they're treating or they're examining section twelve examiners agree with the treatment that was being recommended by the treating physician namely the right carpal tunnel surgery which doctor  necessary their argument was that it should have been awarded in the first trial although it had not yet and prescribed thereby making it impossible for alan to argue and ask for those treatments at the original  apology at trial the second trial presented new evidence regarding new treatment that had been recommended the appellee octane opinions which agreed with that treatment and the commission correctly worded the treatment namely the the court counsel my name's brian rod i represent ford motor company in this matter the standard of review here is to know both and the sort of what was correct in applying the law of the case doctoring the issues here are legal in nature with regard to law of the case doctrine and also with the statutory interpretation under section one thousand be about to begin by dispelling any further confusion with regard to the issue at bar here at no time has the respondent appellee argued that caus connection was not found during the first trial i would try to black made a blanket statement saying that he found a causal connection that said although that statement wasn't made with regard to which particular body part he found a cause and for the respondent at no time is arguing that causal connection was the issue of bar here today as i've argued in my second point in my brief is that prospect of medical was decided by the commission the first time there were certain pieces of evidence that were lacking that the commission found and vacated the right c tunnel syndrome the commission also failed to award any treatment with regard to the petitioner cervical spine and in the case because it was right under section one thousand be was remanded back to the average trader at that point titian or was precluded from offering any further for everything at that point but once the commission decides that and that opinion or that decision becomes final the petitioner no longer have the option to come back and reopen perhaps on the issue of prospect of medical is there something that prevents the titian or the employer to get perspective medical in that situation i would agree that he would your honor under section eight especially because it had already been decided by the commission there's no issue at that point with the circuit court in this case so doing due back he what happened here and what makes it different is that right couple tell surgery was vacated by the commission so the petitioner in the commission gave its reasons so the fisher had that information went back to the train physicians perfected the claim and what were the reasons the commission ga commission a specific specified that the medical records submitted evidence did not address the necessity element for prescribing the medicate or the medical treatment so when the commission is is that tantamount to saying the guild approved because of connections no it's a completely separate issue connection has been found by the commission during the first hearing and it continues to be so and i'm not arguing against that when i am arguing against is when the commission bakey to the right couple tunnel surgery and specifically addressed the issue of prospective medical the only recourse the petitioner had after that decision was to file an appeal to the circuit court and said that he stuck to give make sure you understand so what you're saying is if it's only one shot at a request for prospective medical if that issue is placed under a  hearing and the commission decides it and that decision is final under that issue of prospective medical then law the case applies yes your honor in other words even though his medical situation changes and progress is he can come back months or a year two years later for a second limits on the medical word expiring and that's not what i'm arguing here judge what i'm arguing here is that the commission specifically vacated the right carpal tunnel syndrome at that point the petitioner then took that information the commission's decision described what was lacking in the prospective medical for the right carpal tunnel syndrome became law the case and could no longer be really good at subsequent hearings this court in a similar decision and help at home vs the illinois worker's compensation for mission had very similar paths although the issue in that case was causal connection and remanded the case back to the arbitrator and specifically instructed the ever trader that it could reevaluate new evidence with regard to racial to causal connection and if so if the evidence proves it find a causal connection funding for the right shoulder what happened at that point is the respondent appealed and this court held that even with that specific mandate by the commission the overture was not entitle to revaluate new evidence based on causal connection or even the right shoulder because the law of the case doctrine applied the only difference between the circumstances and help at home and the circumstances that are here today are the issue is different it's prospective medical versus an action there's no you don't see a difference between those two when medical use of open issues if medical would be an open issue your honor based upon if the commission in the first case hearsay found left are all right carpal and the cervical issues and that was the final decision then they respond it would no longer have an argument but arbitrators decision ok ever taters decision made a simple statement a one sentence blanket causal connection he stated i quote the other trigger for the fines that the petitioners present condition of ill being is causally related to the injury of september twentieth two thousand and six now would have been helpful if the arbitrator would have specified whether it was left left hand right hand or the neck and he failed to do so so i can't concede right couple tunnel no clue so there is a causal connection question involved in your law of the case argument not at presently your honor i think that  complicate the matter at this point i think cause a connection has been and i would be willing to see it conceded at least for the purposes of this argument that cause a connection in general has been found and i am not arguing that causal connection is the issue pertaining the law the case argument here the issue here is prospect of medical the difference between the case of bar and the framing case is that in framing case there was no vacation of any type of prospective medical by the commission it was in a situation you presented the commission found prosper medical there was no question as to any of the i guess there was a limitations to it as their work here and then time went on and there was no time limitation for the petitioners right to those benefits here the position of the opportunity to argue in favor of in favor of prospective medical the arbitrator awarded the when it got to the commission level the commission vacated at that point the only other option for the petitioner to secure the record of some surgery was to go ahead an appeal to the circuit  since the commission and already decided that and that the there's issue became final that issue became final and became a lot of the case a subsequent one thousand b should have been limited by statute by the thomas versus the industrial commission case two hearings based upon case would proscribe any type of a limitation in time so again if there were if the commission in the first decision here didn't vacate the right couple tunnel surgery there would be a they would allow the petitioner collect benefits  and why did they make it because the evidence submitted at the first trial failed to support a necessity finding for the right couple final surgery and if you look at the timeline of the case judge this is a september twentieth two thousand and six alleged accident the t any medical records that could have been available over two years after the accident very well could have supported the necessity funding for both hands and the neck however the commission found that the medical records failed to support the bus accident on notes from november seventh two thousand and eight connection in fact that was the the exact office visit that the commission referenced in denying or vacating the record tunnel surgery because even though there was a causal finding or at least a causal opinion by the doctor in the records there wasn't enough information in those records to support a necessity finding and as we all know the petitioner has the burden to prove each and every element of every issue of his worker's compensation claim and so even if later his lip cripple to nil syndrom progress to the point where he doesn't need surgery he can go back and get it that's not necessarily true your honor again i think freeman would apply in that case as long as the commission failed to vacate any of the prospective medical there would not be a time limit or an expiration of the matter which  keen on is fact that they vacated it because it was evidence was he didn't need lift surgery at that time and what i'm and want to be very clear about this judge what when i'm stating here since the commission made a decision with regard to the issue of i'm saying that the commission did not have the authority of does not have the authority under the statute to remand the case back to the average reader for further evidence to be presented on an issue that it already decided once it gets to the commission that evidence statute and again just like in help at home where the commission specifically instructed the other trader to reconsider causal connection evidence for the right shoulder this court held that even with that specific instruction the overture was unable on remand because consideration of good the prospective medical for the right couple tunnel and cervical physical therapy at the time the first trial were not up as an issue as they had not yet done stright we could not go in there to ask for those treatments as they were not prescribed until of medical treatment are two very different things if the commission had stated we find that the left heart i'm sorry excuse me the right couple tunnel is not causally connected to the work accident of september twentieth two thousand and six that decision comes final we said we cannot go before the commission to ask for treatment that has not been awarded the arbitrator simply made a mistake that mistake was vacated and the decision became correct and for those reasons once again we asked that the decision of the commission be reinstated