constructed agency and it only has the rights and powers that have been provided to it that are listed within the act and that are detailed in the rules governing practice or the illinois workers compensation commission part of these rules that's for the rules of pleadings within the commission rules seventy twenty one twenty eight specifically states that an application for adjustment of claim must be limited to one accident or claim the question of law raised here is one of an interpretation of the rules of pleading before the on i workers compensation mission each application is specifically limited to one date of loss the date of loss and a worker's compensation claim is very important the practice at the workers compensation commission for numerous reasons there are coverage issues that can be determined by the data blocks there's presented in an application the determination of rates for benefits  be cleaning rules of the commission and that they are enforced here the petition question mr trees had filed only one application for just one a claim listing only one data plus for july fourteenth two thousand evaluate are however if you look at the complete stat set of those records and specifically the narrative reports of dr cronin and dr co you can see that there is no medical reference to the act over one of the line he clearly without question specifically states that it is a new injury that is no way related to the earlier injuries the t f c c injury and the compensation commission of aggravation and exacerbation and yet i find it telling that in his report he still didn't even he wasn't able to say that the subsequent accidents that he lists when she does list and he lists five different accident dates no he pose opinion was that all of the injuries together caused a permanent disability he was not able to say that the current condition of the petitioner was related to the original work only has to be a cause of the condition that the july fourteenth two thousand injury was a t f c c tear and that for that the petitioner received conservative treatment surgical repair occupational therapy had no complaints of pain or the other thing else that goes with that incident but when dr cronin opines that he does have to mine to return to work without any restrictions based on the ts c c tear then i think any further action is severed and frankly that that is what we're asking here is just that this case be remanded back to the circuit court and then again miranda back to the commission with instructions that they prepare decision that is restricted to only the accident that is filed on of july fourteenth two thousand at no time have we claimed even to address the cause of connection issues to the two one zero one every one of the line and date of last the may a one date of last or the october a one day to last because those cases filed and they are not before the court argued at this time all we are getting mainly is that the resultant treatment last time or anything other than that are not related to this july fourteenth two thousand dat should have added in that case when he was returned to work in february of two thousand and one i believe that supported by dr cronin's october two thousand and one statement that the ice or carbonara ten that the claimant had reached next month medical improvement with respect to his prior injuries he related the claimant came in and said he was doing well he did not leave any complaints of symptoms whatsoever resumed his regular duties and then the g m his left foresee whether they could be temporary whether they could result surgery it would just basically be filing you could be filing in many cases dozens of applications on the same line if you were to adopt their argument and be in almost real time communication with the these were continuing problems and the only only contradiction to dr jones records are proof and offered by the respondents this question about whether he said that the corpus was was related to get in the same letter the doctor says it was the potion performed actually did all three of these accidents because of this condition i think i would say i would more accurately characterize it in my my view would be that there was an aggravation of the original or because of the original condition deteriorated condition of the original condition that is aggravation because we have to look at the total history here so you know i don't i don't i can't represent the sport that he said that directly specifically is new injury not related to the earlier injury didn't cronin say that but yes but he also said that the motion that was before everybody to the situation is just work related this is general we're sort of reading between the lines there's a general weakening of the wrist and yet i'm looking for specific medical testimony that says there is zero difference between second totally independent injury aggravates the condition and the this and even to different for filing purposes in this case in this case are put position our  structure but it's a different subset of the same structure therefore it's a go into the history here is overall was he injured his wrist he was sent back to work his work activity he had work activities honour's first i just want to quickly address the august thirty one two thousand and one no of dr cronin's counsel was referring to invent note dr cronin does state that first his opinions veins and he thought it was unrelated to his work completely dr cronin replied and it was specifically limited to the degree remains issue of not causal connection and doctors thinks report in reply that he said that i was not able to condition and that the degree of binge was work related to february one two thousand and one with respect to councils opinions and statements that it would not be realistic to have petitioned owners filing subsequent applications for possible aggregations and exacerbations and they would need to be on speed dial i think that's a bit of an overexaggeration the petitioners allowed three years of the statute of limitations to file a claim those that time had not even had just run or not run by the time the trial was had at any point after they found that there is an actual separate and specific diagnosis or at least at the to point where he had surgery on the airplanes should have been obvious that they would have might have wanted to file a new accident or an alleged aggravation however they want to leave it at that point with respect to notice there's a difference between notice of the accident getting noticed the company and notice to the insurance company medical bills being paid temporary total disability being paid for subsequent accidents and a writer patient typing want to term them but i believe they're all separate injuries separate new accidents and even though there is no just given the petitioner still has a burden of filing an application for those new accidents new data loss within the statute of limitations just because they're claiming that something is related may be related they're still especially limitations out there and just because the respondent had noticed a new injury occurred on a new date doesn't mean they have noticed that the petitioner has filed an application for that claim and they're proceeding to trial on that claim we can still pay the medical bills that we receive and that under the other accidents just that it's not related to this case and by the sheer fact that they put those dates in there there was a specific statement of last time it's not a knowledge of any kind of  with subsequent accidents affecting the same body part that was the same in that case the petitioner had a work related injury for carpal tunnel syndrome and then he had subsequent personal occurrences at home which they believed they praise the art after the fact that my name is to meet your house and i represent the a pallant river bridge school districts number two ten we are here today because it is our position that the commission err on three separate issue in its determination we believe first that the commission erred in determining cause ation between the employees christine byers condition of ill being and the incident which occurred on january twenty second two thousand and four as a result of the commission's error error in the first issue we believe that there was a domino up act and there was also a subsequent error in the commission's a warning to a prospective surgery and the panel finds that the commission erred on the first issue of causation  they're the employees on the expert dr reardon actually testified that the prospective surgery that was ordered by the commission would not necessarily be helpful and might actually what specific evidence are these you know of right our position is that this has so many of dr weiss supports the fact that yes the employee was hit in the face with the ball on january twenty second two thousand and four but not actually take all of the evidence including objective tags testimony instead of consideration when they made the their terminations and i believe that the commission looked at the two doctors and looked at their testimony and just win either one way or the other with the testimony but i think that that is not something that can be done of the situation because although dr reardon and dr weiss were both the experts that were hired to testify on behalf of each of the parties i believe that such as the x ray the m r i the e m g the medical records including statements missed by are stating that initially she had pain in her neck and shoulders and then later statements that she had pain in her lower back and braiding down her arm into her pinky finger and her ring fingers i think that the the evidence needs to be looked at in a whole you can't just look at the testimony  two doctors you need to look at the x ray which showed that the plaintiffs excuse me the employee didn't act have a severe degenerative disc disease and see fact a six and see six to seven found the same findings in their research of the medical records of the employee christine buyer it's just that the two doctors came to a different conclusion as to what the findings should be interpreted as the treatment you can see that this isn't the first time that she's treated obviously i know of an employer takes their employees at they find them however misfires specifically has had injuries previously for injuries that were the result of working condition there's testimony in the medical records and christine by her actually testified at the commission's hearing and stated that within a couple of days after the january twenty second two thousand and four and senate she was working on her husband's arm and she was actually throwing bales a forty pound bales of hay over her head in her activities of performing farm work we believe that that's an intervening cause why because we believe that  there is an x ray taken that it was coming there is an x ray take in christine virus that on january twenty third two thousand and four was the day after the incident at that point the x ray only showed that there was degenerative a severe degenerative disc condition of her spine now if you look at the later the results of the later objective tests such as the m r i and the g there is actually a herniated disk and that if the same buyer was in the severest state and had such a severe injury as she claimed i would question how she's physically able when she has pain in her neck and shoulders to throw forty pound bales of hay over her well i think that that goes in line with dr rice's testimony and he actually ordered that the m g b taken in december two thousand and four because he thought it was possible that the ridiculous having that he noted at c eight and t wanted would actually on because he thought that that was possibly the reason and the cause for the pain that mr buyer was experiencing however when the results of the x ray came back he was baffled by the fact that there was no showing whatsoever of any injury or needed is abnormality lesion anything like that in the c eight and t won region and it was surprising to him because had and i believe bad this isn't a situation where the commission could have either believed one expert or the other i believe that the scales are in fact hit based on the x rays the that in fact the incident on january twenty second two thousand and four was not the cause of misfires current state building and as such i also believe that the commission erred in a warning prospective surgery as i stated briefly dr reardon specifically stated that a surgery of the nature that was awarded was is not something that is necessarily going to how christine fire she has extremely severe degenerative disc disease in her back and a surgery such as this type could potentially aggravate further problems with her back as such if if if the employees on an expert medical expert does not recommend a surgery it's hard for me to understand how the commission thought thank good to i would have to review her response to the record and unfortunately i don't have apnea record but it was my understanding based on my reading of dr riordan's testimony that he did not in fact recommend the surgery and he thought that this surgery might