probably heard manifest weight of the evidence arguments all day till i can't think of anything else this is a very interesting case here because what the judge did is he used a statute of limitations statue of limitations which sets forth a three year statute of limitations for filing a workers compensation claims act as a bar to the presentation of evidence of work activities that took place more than three years essence the only evidence that could be considered as part of the ruling by the arbitrator would be the day before the manifestation date of the injury so if you look if you carry it out to its absurdity then basically what the judges ruled if you get one day of evidence to make a determination as to whether this is a repetitive trauma case and years ago it's a takes years sometimes of the vocals but that's absolutely correct and i think i think when we look at all the cases and starting off with purity of bellwood until it goes on this progeny we understand the concept of a repetitive trauma case that takes place over the passage of time any of us in this room that has ever  causal connection opinion with the repetitive trauma case to a physician asks various components not only the type of work performed the repetition in which the work is performed but also the duration of employment is always a component of every causal connection of pain to limit the duration of employment to three years prior to the manifestation date defies all cases that we've had that looks at the evolve bent in the duration of the employment and of the activities that ultimately leads to the day where the breakdown of the body part takes place where then the petition visits with a physician there are usually diagnostic studies either in g m r i cat scan there is that that moment today eureka moment where we know what the diagnosis is and there's discussion of the one room and a stash of this statute is sixty eight which talks about the statute of limitations and even if we're going to use the construction that the council in the court decided upon which is the especially to us and and radiological exposure it is still a statute of limitations from twenty five years from the date of the last exposure there is no addressing an evidentiary issue at all and the statute of the  together he says it often i just would rather have an appellate court decision to get rid of this issue once and for all so every one of these arbitration hearings i have i don't have to address the statute of limitations issue in the repetitive tr deadline in which file you lie claim and you're trying to argue about the ability of the employer or the insurance company to collect evidence well that's easy because we have we have a episode single episode trauma and we move forward with the repetitive trauma case we have occurrences that take place over the years and in this situation employed nearly thirty seven years for worth a young young woman at the time older woman at the time  that it works both ways you know the words would not be permitted to produce any evidence of any injury occurring prior to that day which you wouldn't be able to deduce any evidence of no year period at a meat packing syllabi certainly mr mack ross you wouldn't want this ruling because he would be barred from putting forth twenty years of an employee working at a meat packing factory which would certainly be contributory to a repetitive truncates so and i don't want to use hyperbole but it's the ruling using the statute of limitations as a part of it it's patently absurd and  statute under the worker's compensation act then we look at the rules of evidence of illinois which are the civil rules and also any current law all cases that defied orders least set forth rules of evidence so there is a statute or a rule that addresses evidentiary matters and that was not at least considered by the court when using the statute of limitations and i don't know if i have objection as opposed to a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations as a part because i completely deaf and i raised at the very beginning when the person started testifying as to what they did thirty four years ago i raise the statue of limitations of the fence saying that she could only testify as to injuries or accidents that happen within three years  that anything that occurred more than three years from the data that application was prodded by the staff limitations and here's why i say that just hear me out under section sixty that's what controls ok if she wanted to bring any of her injuries specific injuries in one nine hundred seventy eight or nineteen eighty she would be powered by the statute of limitations bringing that in two thousand and ten two thousand and eleven the dispute on that that's the accident they were i have a dispute is the person in a repetitive trap and this repetitive trauma case is bringing about injuries or accidents that occurred to her although you one happened to him prior to that manifestation date that led to the carpal tunnel or whatever but these are early but those are injuries that have occurred and the time for them to be brought i because the person is limited under the act of bringing our mr back to a few years where you're just totally wrong prior to the manifestation date there was no statute of limitations running because the manifestation date for the ruling what what what the judge is saying here what i'm saying here is there including in causation for the repetitive trauma injuries that are otherwise barred by the statue limitations that what brought within the three years from you know  pretty specific injuries or coincidence webster again defies it's trauma as an injury whether or not you could revive those by now calling them instead of specific injuries you could revive and say was repetitive trauma so i could talk about i think