her receipts were for the night from the customers that's not consistent with section ten which required that her actual wages be considered not what  so regardless of weighing the evidence or anything of that nature we believe that the evidence that the commission consider it was their own ears and therefore we believe that portion of the case should be remande for a proper review terminations upper section and wages child care legal issue as to whether or not child care is covered under section eight child care well the issue here was the childcare we're talking about with much earlier in the case when she was a bit of a doctor said she can't care for her kids that was dr bax very early on that was continued throughout the case as a matter of fact the insurance carrier paid for years for the child care so it's not an issue of whether or not she could care for the children the issue affirm on any basis in the opinion that it really we're talking about two separate issues are we not first of all we're talking about whether natural care expenses falls within the purview of the statutory section you're citing correctness and then it the evidence it appears she would that have been covered because she would have been fatal to it because she's caring for children is demonstrated by the evidence so what is your response to bit my response to that is what you should do is say that it's covered under section a day every man to the commission to that's not even measured in the respondent in mitch's that the child care expenses that we're we're asking for are legit that was never raised in other words it whatever the amount is fifty sixty thousand dollars that's not an issue the issue is whether they are covered under section eight in the first analysis and valiums how thousands of all kinds of maintenance issues that people need to get around when they're disabled are covered and i don't see the distinction with child care if she can't take care of her children because of the worker's comp disability or insufficien was not in dispute cause the connection was found basically in her favor except for a few minor medical expenses and they find that she's entitled to all of her medical expenses but then in the order section they award her there's nothing in the decision that talks about it allows doctors to adam's bill for twelve hundred dollars if practice and i'm not contesting that what i'm contesting is that there's for example sixty eight thousand dollars in prescriptions that are not mentioned anywhere in the commission's decision so it's very confusing as to when you say that all the medical expenses are allowed and then in the order section you say we all twelve hundred dollars for dr adams reacting to t t d issue she was off by her treating doctors twenty percent man as a whole however there is no evidence in this case as to whether or not she ever arrived at an m r i and again i think u k should be remanded on that attention to the commission's decision and not to the circuit court but if you read the circuit court's opinion all it does is it takes my brief and says petitioner claim and it takes the other side's brief and says responded claims this doesn't give any rationale and ideas at work here because we don't get really a rationale and at a lower level  media that's really inappropriate it is a waste of time to go through the circuit court when there is no rationale in this case needs some rationale the findings do not are not consistent  at who has the burden present the evidence that it rests squarely with the petitioner in this case the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence for the commission to make a determination  evidence presented was i believe my hourly wage was between three fifty and four dollars i believe i work between fifteen and twenty five hours a week and i averaged four hundred fifty dollars to six hundred dollars a week in tips the ash requires specificity and persuasion in the computation of the average weekly wage in the absence of any  specific evidence on the part of to be commission appropriately chose to follow and utilize that evidence that was presented that was specific namely the payroll our grief the employee of the iron worker had the same problem he said while the wait statement is not correct but he failed to present any evidence that establishes what was correct in the court the payroll records of the employer of which the iras mandated a percent of sales probably that is correct which would be used in the calculus to set premium that was count that was the documentation the evidence that was used to calculate the average weekly wage in this case therefore i believe given the petition to meet her burn the commission properly under section ten computed the average weekly wage which then affects a benefits if one looks at the worker's comp act in total the act is specific and limited to the benefit of the employee e if an employee is injured and requires someone to call me in and help care for them the employee that i believe is covered under the act if someone is an employee's injured but the someone comes in as in the case of this case before that the court someone comes in to help care for children that's not covered under the act the act is very limited it is limited and interpret ing the workers compact we have to be we have to look broader we have to look to the intent of the act as we divine from the act as a whole and the act of the home as a whole is focused specifically on the employee so with that in mind i would interpret this specific language the justice inquires about as being limited to that which is necessary to assist injured were setting aside the issue of whether or not these expenses fall within the purview of the statute would have of the argument that even if we were so inclined to interpret the act in that manner under the facts of the case he would be entitled to it because the evidence showed he was capable of employer paid child care to the point where she was deemed to have reach mattia medical improvement and could therefore go back to work and presumably no longer require assistance  factual evidence in the record that would support a determination that she would not be entitle to childcare benefits because of her ability to care for her children  some companies will pay their employees a more generous benefit than is required by workers comp wage an hour act as a matter of policy i cannot tell the court that that in fact was not the case here i cannot tell who work that in fact the employer and or the carrier and i would suspect the carrier not because they they do this but that the employer  doctor that petitioner was sent to initially early on by who i believe that is buying it would have been the ensure by the insurers doctor required receive full time day care he said that is an opinion he rendered i don't know if the doctor can require i think the doctor can render a medical opinion or requires this is suggesting that she would need it then i believe the insurance company and more the employer therefore makes once the doctor tells him what he thinks from a medical standpoint is necessary then i believe the employer and the insurance company will make that determination as to what they want or bought here for a million with the deal in case where the supreme court decided that allowed for the insurance on the thing in the computer and that type of work for the paraplegic support no we are not paid off and that's why i'm going to go back to a part question i am not uncomfortable suggesting that it was a misinterpretation it may well have been a corporate decision to pay i which case i'd be uncomfortable asking for credit personally as the as the advocating attorney so i believe the statute doesn't fire child support and justice i gree with you that the evidence of record is replete with evidence as to why she would not be entitled to it otherwise i think the commission to to respond to a known point of councils the commission was very clear on its  decision she was entitled to medical benefits up to the point on april twenty fourth of two thousand when dr freeman expressed the opinion that she was capable of working she had recovered she that that was videos that you're talking about and that's what you're talking about the videos that was in ninety nine the accident happened in ninety six videos weren't done until three years after the accident so the three year period of time from the date of the accident up until the videos there's no evidence regarding her credibility prior to the videos in other words there's no evidence about what happened the first three years mission no i never could be because then he would he would not have employers were willing to come forward and pay claims up front if that was an admission box i think in this case he is an whirlpools and things that doctors order in worker's comp cases so i think even regarding the issue of her credibility i think you have to look the time period there was no credibility issue that could be ra illinois law regarding what we consider as section ten wages it has to be what's in section ten not what's in the i r s rules thank you for