previously decided that his condition was not work related i know the answer to that question should seem fairly obvious it's no less the question that brings us before this court today now in order to fully address that issue there's two major undisputed factual issues that i want to focus on and there are essential to any you know assist in this matter first the defendant was injured in a non work related more cycle accident in september of two thousand and five and had significant injuries same doctors are using both proceedings the facts are the same the medical records were the same the arguments were the same didn't want to hear why didn't the pension board just sit and wait for that to be done and that's what we argued before the pension board your own of the village made that argument arguments before the pension for the plaintiff the injured employee raised that same causation degree argument in the risk of proceedings in the court indicated to be a full opportunity to litigate the issue of the work related nature before the passion we wouldn't be making this argument today because the pension board wouldn't know about that decision but we have here is a decision in the workers comp commission saying that the current condition is not work related and therefore the pension board should be bound by it in fact in the this particular case was there any other medical procedure before or any medical examination performed after the workman's comp to see it was final  fully examined the soft tissue and determine what if any impact either of these injuries happen next particular issue how does that fit into both decisions what's the energy i'm talking about a year  work related injury that there were significant limitations for mr martello he was having trouble and in fact surgery was recommended prior to the the september two thousand and six work related injury had they had the arbitrator found that there was still some april two thousand and seven that injury was fully he was fully recovered from that injury and likely to get back to work you are because of his preexisting p c l injury i understand the fact that he was toughening toughing it out beforehand and he was willing to it to the top of the fight through the pain and instability in the injuries but there's adequate evidence in the record that he was having these issues prior to the work related injury was having difficulty and was according to his doctors willing to tough it out that time after the injury he did have p c l reconstruction but he still has he's not able to return to work because of that p c l condition if there was anything else that would refute the arbitrator's decision that the work for the injury was fully healed and that's what we have here a decision it was a legal issue it wasn't limited to the record that was before the pension board because it was a strictly legal issue it was in those involved an issue of the facts in the testimony of of them that the evidence in the case was a strictly legal it and that there was no bill taken really came down shortly thereafter just it was this was the wrong time understanding that it could have been i understand your point but what we're left with in what we need to consider is the fact that we have here sitting here today two conflicting decisions we have the decision of the workers contribution saying this is not will not work related and you have a decision of the patchwork saying this is work related and all it would take in because that decision was already at that point was for the p specifically what we have here judge is is there was an opportunity in assessing to avoid the situation we had with the conflicting judgments the workers compensation decision involve the same asking this court to do is first ignore by the name supreme for president for which there is no lack of clarity that meaning the ball reverses city of springfield case which says that to a the i think councils lay down in two week period the appellate decision came down there would still have been time even then to file a request to the supreme court correct absolutely be the now let's talk about one grave error that the village has been trying to convince the score of and as if the issues were the same in the nation be hearing before the workers comp commission and result what is also undisputed is that on september thirteenth of two thousand and six when mr mittal as they're presenting this violence subject in the course of a drug you know entry into our house he also not the same it's not on all fours on the board all in the village rather of i think there's another word he never mind means fully recovered it's clearly not correct we also have the issue about not a detective sitting in the in the office at a desk this was somebody doing a very rigorous physically demanding job and someone cared very much about their job and that's why he got back given collateral estoppel effect it's a final judgment dealing with these axing issues between the same parties all of the requirements are met here we have no final judgment we have no similarity of the issues and common motion your honor but it does happen from time to time and the board believe that basically this matter have proceeded for a long period of time in fact it was i believe actually the the board heard all the  completed its deliberation this particular manner i think i believe in june of there you heard wasn't until the written decision was actually handed down and you are told of their here so this matter had gone on for a long period of time and as i say it bifurcated from the standpoint that mr mittal it was granted a nod to the disability and then he proceeded to the depositions of several other after so it was a long period of time and the border was of the opinion that it had to move forward on the matter and the pension or again characteristically with the jews they had their deliberations the evidence was finished did the parties know anything about the final order before october was that the first time we learned of the final the board did not know about the so the more did go for the sake of the record in this particular matter the board good except in the evidence the documents presented by the village with respect to workers count and as you will know in the decision the board determined that there would not have any there was a severe a motorcycle accident a sustained injury to his rated lower extremity you know five now he went back to full duty after that now even though the record i do support that he went back  so i think physicians is required by statute all those three selected physicians of i recall and there was competent medical lead in the evidence counter medical evidence in addition to that indicating that he did sustain injury the work related injury those doctors are not suggesting it was the sole cause and we understand that the law does not require the injury to be this will cause but merely a company cause an aggravating exacerbation of the situation that is clearly with the lawyers the board believe that there was competent medical evidence supporting a nice engine that it did aggravated preexisting can condition injury in that it did suspend him from service and the is that he did not work after that injury so for message point the board believed that there was counter to the evidence to support his decision in this particular matter and we believe that the court should sustain a based upon that and i want to take  street because i've already served on the workman's comp panel twice to do things but at the pension board you're taking both of the injuries to get there ultimately because there's an court but i understand the decision comes through from the pension board and not only in that you know you're asking us to to look beyond what happened on the day the board made its decision big picture of the entire situation you had all these issues that had already been litigated all these issues that had been decided on multiple levels understanding there was one final decision that was still remaining to come down and when you look at that when you look at that in the con