posing counsel my name's john powers i represent the plaintiff up alon ironi school ball and this matter what this really boils down to is whether or miscall was a lawyer for him or not i think the commission makes two well two very erroneous errors in that decision first of all the commission says that agnes who will never alleged for the contract that her husband signed so form could pay or because of her immigration status but even when you look to that contract it shows if you want to believe that the foreign hired  circuit court the entire record is appeal to the circuit court so that cannot be waived before the circuit court secondly so if you don't refit and you don't argue it's not waived well and it is up to the court to call out  was before the circuit court decide and my adamant before the circuit court as is here at this legally impossible for someone not covered under the workers compensation act to have an accent under the baucus conversation technically the circuit court can say fine i have the record now the commission's decision all rounder decision my own i only recent party i will rendered incisional i am there's no rule that requires the parties to brief the issues review the commission's decision for errors and that there's then obviously send it back all the circuit court can do is review the issues that were decided by the commission which is what's sort of cordons here and we're taking our fill from that work to this court but like i said it's not waived from commission it's a circuit court of the entire record is on review present the case all when the case is appealed from the circuit court or from the so i don't believe that issue can be weighed and as i said it's a moot point once they find she's not covered under the act then it's legally impossible for her to have an x on the act so they lay a possible fo the commission said the issue of the accident was moot they specifically said that because they found no employer to a relationship so there be no reason for you raise the question of absence but the only thing you've got to raises the question e the sun times could raise any issue from the record that would support the judgment of all you can do there is an example leave but replacing he issue a matter it was never decided by the commission raising it here i think that's kind of cute but going back to the employment issue the the terms of the contract  we look the nature of the business test this obviously goes to the heart of the test for am retain the right to change the rate that they were paying for newspaper they also retain the right to terminate the contract at will they gave her the route she'd think structure on specific instructions from certain subscribers how they won the newspapers delivered they told her which subscribers to deliver the newspapers to she wasn't free to just go  anywhere she also declutching work which was not mentioned in the contract signed by our friend she did it negotiation with for him to increase or wages for the collection or the party stipulated as to what bribery trick will wage was which is another just another fine by the commission which is why absurd saying that there's no evidence or wages of course there's no evidence is as it was pointed out earlier the entire record from the arbitrator to the commission does go up on revealing all issues are under review at that point in time was there a finding by the commission in addition to the fail to prove an employer employee relationship you necessarily feel to prove it because you can only recover for accidents arising out of the scope of your point so if you failed to prove the point you that as a matter of law you have an independent contractor away from you you cannot prove that so where i think the question is we are uncertain assume the majority on the issue of an employment relationship and then goes on in ta only as to why he thinks the majority is wrong on that issue of employment relationship the finding of fact and there's no discussion that would add further confusion to the decision of the commission and undermines to some extent what you're what you're saying you know i case since the trial so during the trial that was that was a major issue as well but like i said facts were put in evidence with regards to all the issues in in dispute at that time in moving accident petitioner time trial then we go up to the circuit board and councils write the entire records up on review but they have a duty to present their issues to the circuit court that they want review and they do not present and  in come up to this court and say aha the commission erred no i don't think they can i think they have to address the issue in the lower court and some patients even if the commissions decisions are wrong it's completely correct it was whether it be that following you know the legal and possibility argument or whether it be a separate separate argument on its own i think it has to be addressed at the circuit court of justice often i wonder how the supreme court bar you from reviewing the issue and i but it's a but i think it boils down to the fact that since it wasn't presented send it back in tell them to make the appropriate findings in this particular case the circuit court could not judicially review this accident and anything other than employment inadequately well the question  is since since it was not brought up at the supreme court and be brought here i think that's the focus that we need on that issue we've gone through it doesn't bind us i'm sorry we've a bones you it doesn't bind decisions that people can review and if they're not doing that someone better to come on they have to start our thing you have to start to reduce reasons for what they do not if the reason for what when when the issue was raised by the sun times at the circuit court as an attempt to bar any further appeal on the issue of baxter the focus was not that it was a legal possibility that it could be argued the focus was whether the facts were presented at the time trial to support a finding of accident and i think if you look at the record there was the petitioner failed to providing medical evidence contemporaneous to her accident that supports her allegations of a specific accident on that date so i think if you look at it that way the commission's decision doesn't play out that they failed to prove accident  was robert louis p l u reading katie and i represent chicago sun times well you're preaching to the choir when it comes to a better decisions from the commission unfortunately i don't think i'm going to be the one to be telling the commission i don't think they appreciate that but you're more familiar with the minute we don't mind doing ok you're more familiar with these commission decisions and i am and of course what you see on page eight twelve seen a number of decisions where they put the arbitration findings on the back and they simply adopt the most part of the decision if you take a look at page seventeen in the middle it starts out with the statement of the medical records and that says his workers are talking about dr dombrowski reflecting initially soft tissue on the sixteenth two thousand well before the accident she had problems with her nap well before the accident and the commission goes was saying at the end of a paragraph no word on the rockies records does the petitioner mention that she injured her net lifting bundles at work the commission has made a fact finding there is the basis of the commission decision at that point it became incumbent upon the opponents to raise this issue and discuss this issue in the circuit court the a problem has told you just now that he did not do so here is the basis of the commission's finding regarding accidents now could they have written two paragraphs sure could they have written three paragraphs sure they chose to write one paragraph at that point the apology should have sent a circuit court i don't agree with these reasons i think these reasons are incomplete i think they should of given other reasons the apollo failed to do s and pursuant to the supreme court's decision in penny cap they have waived this issue now there are a number of field problems with this case and whether we pick one or the other it is not really important  obviously for for my benefit since on the sun times my argument is powerful just told you a few a few moments ago that for amazon the newspaper business well that's not ultra hazardous activity a completely new case that's a review of the commission's decision it's not a continuation of the commission's decision it's something with completely new and the appeal in the circuit court is the appeal of the circuit court's order well i already knew that they were an employer of the apple because they they admit that they have a least two employees mr maz and his wife and if you find i guess who will be employee now there's three employees so by definition of the they would be now as follows the ultra hazaras activity under the they are our strong aged in the distribution of material using a gasoline vehicle point out to that if you room in this matter back to the commission to make alternative findings you know are you not solely encouraging the commission to do that in cases where they find on the off an issue either