ur appeal because hugh clearly is getting a double award under section eighty and we believe that it's mr geary's greed for lack of a better word that brings us here we're already paying him an eight d one wage differential and he'll get that for the rest of his life but on an addition of that for the same body part he wants a section eight d to man as a whole the shoulders a person as a whole and so it really doesn't matter if we say that the shoulder was injured is that was injured or his back was injured it's the same thing and so your entire argument hinges on that i think so  yes because i mean these other cases chicago baumgardner they dealt with body parts or in the case of bound  killed me here you know the right knee but we were talking again about heat on the right knee so if this let's say this case has been brought before the will county case he would have gotten an award under  his left shoulder here and then in his second accident after he got back to work full duty into his left shoulder and his neck that is lumbar spine sold and is run by a spinal but his treaters said it's a it's a difficult differential diagnosis treating the left shoulder in the cervical spine and that's why i think this is a done over review i don't think we have to apportion it you know up shoulder seventy percent knack twenty percent lower back ten percent it's all the same thing in the eyes  because that case involved a back injury and then a back injury on lower back both your back and his award for man as a whole was taken away from him after he got his eighty one and in the same way we're asking for saying if if it hadn't been for will county we'd be talking about an eighty schedule the word for the arm which is what he had he clearly had a shoulder injury and it used to be called an arm shoot back then and then and he was still allowed to get an eighty one i don't know that the circuit court saw that that was such a big deal either i think that if he had the arbitrator had to decide on all the evidence as a whole when it when the case was consolidated i suppose the gar were really wanted both could have tried his first case you know the august two thousand and five accent first got a man is all award and then separately brought his wage differential and got a separate award i suppose he could have done he could've done that but he didn't but why should it be treated differently with their trade separately or consolidated i'm sorry i should buy should the type of who already gets be treated differently based on whether they're tried together or separately well  where they based on the really the principle that you have an indivisible injury but you know it's the same body or you really can't tell which accident caused his ultimate condition will be therefore he gets one recovery i think that's right but in terms of the body parts i think he was still suffering from a left shoulder pain he was treating with the same doctor for that left shoulder pain his doctor when he saw him the second time zoellick or his partner said you know this is a differential diagnosis between his left shoulder and a cervical spine we're treating both in the end he had a cervical injury but he any also had a long bar spine but i looked stepping back and looking at will count on does it matter because it's still a award for an individual indivisible injury to other body parts totally separate in part and i don't see any reason why you can't get it you seem to suggest that once you get a person is a whole every person as a whole is the same in divisible injury to the same body part it's not i mean if something makes up persons of all some injury makes it up what is it what part of his body was injured when he got the person who all wore n a question what part of his body was injured when he got the wage differential award if it's the same body part in his totally inducible is two how much for each one i'd agree with you but if it's divisible and i don't think i don't think the argument will shortly i just don't think it's clear that it's divisible is simply because he injured his left shoulder again i thought it would be it would be a cleaner case because i see it is the same body part once he got the wage differential in became arm he could not return to his norm point then appears to me what you're saying is that the injury to the person the hole is you can't be one hundred percent on injured twice well and there's no credit either is there no you can't get credit so i can i suppose you could get you could get fifty of a man in one fifty of a man i don't know how that would fifty of a man in another and it's not as if they are permanently total totally disabled even though it's one hundred of a man with men as a whole i'm not talking about a credit we're being subsumed that's how i think of being subsume is taking taking account of these prior like say back strains and saying it's all part of this case i don't think you have to do that i mean this case was tried with all of the evidence  for and the petitioner asked for damages in the way of both under eighty one he didn't want the election he wanted bowl and so that's why when you see subsumed by i don't think of it as a crime i think of it more of as a credit i mean it's two you're talking about an eighty two a word twice and yes a person can get to eighty two forwards twenty seven eighty two words and there's no credit maybe the arbitrator would take into account that there have been so many injuries but it's not like eighty where there's a credit here there's an election when a case is tried and the person's asking under a d for benefits that's fine which eight d do you want do you want eighty two or eighty one here he had chicago when we said that we talk about individual in the visible injuries to the same body part we may also include body as a whole as the same body work yes because it will tell you don't agree with you on that i separate nick and lower back injuries you'd be making the same argument saying they're yes compensated his body is a whole their force the same body or yes i suppose a difficult are perform his usual occupation when coupled with the injury he sustained in the second years so is it really in dition of the two that makes the wage differential the word proper i mean is it recovery for individual condition i suppose you are saying i think it's i think the facts make it too hard to to make it either visible it's very very difficult for me to understand because on in one and that's my argument i just think that you you ask what happens if you didn't have the first accident would he still have had the wage differential from the second right you know the house who used to say because the doctor was treating him for both and said this is a difficult or actual diagnosis because we're we're we're talking about the arm that was the shoulder that was already injured the shoulder that was already injured at injured exactly time in his neck and his back with  documents from brush and injured his neck and his robeck to treatment immediately after the short injury was only for the shoulder he was released after about a month he said he had problems with that left shoulder on growing even up through the august accident after the august day accident the accident report was filled out and it said neck and robeck it didn't say anything about the shoulder now as to whether the neck in the shoulder were involved in the second incident but it may very well be a question of faith and we are the true commission heard those facts and would counsel his totally ignored is their shoulder but he had over compensation for the right knee had fine it's on the right shoulder dr ross only treated both these cervical spine and he treated it with a fusion now he was given above full duty release on the that he testified as to what he noticed about himself at the time of the full duty release for the shoulders he testified that he was still having those problems on the day they carry his wage laws differential stems from the restrictions that were imposed upon him as a result of the spite of the cervical fusion not at all because of the shoulders so  wonder now he gets eighteen point eight percent with the shoulder even it can be determined that the injury to the now resulted in the weeds differential award irrespective of the injury to the children would remove resulting in a wage differential anyway then i can accept the argument that he should be able to recover and rebuild eighteen twenty eight plus the weeks differential but if wage differential because of the condition of the shoulder human condition of his neck would be the recovery so now the question is what the commission do about the let's let's look at what the stipulation was in the very beginning of the case  separate decisions and each claim a right for purpose i guess of the respondent we want separate decisions as to the nature and stamp of each claim i understand this is more for convenience sake that we're consolidating the cases then i go on to state give once there are three decisions and we have a dispute as to any one of the multiple decisions we can then file separate petitions for review i'm any or multiple decision so your we get to make you action on each require your honour's i was looking back through my notes to see counsel referred to my me dr levin and i frankly just rely on the treating doctors i don't have report in front of me but i don't i don't know that the commission looking back through the the decision even relied on dr ivins for reports so maybe it's best not to  ask for his argument about again about consolidation of cases for administrative purposes where substantive purposes the point was the case was heard all together one judge heard the  whole all three cases and he found it by the way in the third case there was no permanency but i guess i'd be arguing the same thing if he had found him in a hole in the on the third  which he was awarded so i get the consolidation point of it i did agree to and we stipulated to that that's true but the only way i think he can get around the garrity can get around that is if you tried them separately and the issue is whether or not the only duster commission has jurisdiction over that injury and this court as well as the supreme court has addressed this issue in the macone case in a two thousand and six supreme court case the place of contract in the place of higher the place of country for hire is the sole factor in determining whether or not the only workers compensation commission has jurisdiction truck training that was required to be done here at the quality probably control center plant in someone ellen white because the employer is a franchisee of quality carriers they're exclusively all on behalf of fall here and so there's a lot of steps that go into the hiring process there has to be a background check or ask your drug test there has to be a physical there has to be an over the road test all of that is done in indiana and all of it is done before the painter truck training here and someone eleanore it because the employer doesn't want to go through the expense of the training if they're not going to pass a background check that makes  question and then it's done here in illinois correct yes it's one of quality carriers training center and we want our fire why was it done that way why everything else the navy had it and the last thing done here and they know this is one thirty seven so you would allow mr campbell to do any of the training in summit illinois if you didn't have any of the other documentation completed and all the reviews done because you didn't want to pay for the training correct yes so the say yes but he had to come back to indiana to complete some other paperwork or some didn't you know this is this was the testimony and in fact if you look at the paperwork when the moment he think you're missing a step or the ar illinois so if i can d m back is higher at that moment and he's physically in illinois but it didn't to me doesn't wash because you see if you could do every step necessary you could be an illinois residen to every step necessary to be hired by indian companies take your test in the end everything for me take your drug past and when you're waiting to determine whether they're going to hire you to get the results of your drug test so the calling rich or house  completed i'd agree with you but the arbitrator found something you cannot testify to they are the individuals who evaluated conduct the training determine whether e p a s or field do not extend the offer the offer was never telling him he passed and then he gives him the job but that's not the fighting that you have a trader may because in fact the individuals who conducted the value would have the training you determine whether claimant pastor failed did not extend an offer of employment to the claim the claimant called the facility in the end and spoke to mr pruett i have to record by proving to report to the terminal and indian improve testified in until he gets that ball  worse the claimants yet when he passed to train someone else where the results of the add test were reported to the facility terminally indiana and then the offer of employment was then able to right so there wasn't any color facts or anything as far as we know we don't have any evidence of that right well yet we have a process that is generally god but we don't have to think specific that was done  case is the case that we should be looking at fall because that's the one that tells us it doesn't matter what happens before it's that last fact that we need to look at and we don't have to look at you know the respondent now has come up with that argument will maybe there was a retire or something like that all of their documents everything that they've submitted indicates that the senator third was when he was hired and we have a series of documents that i here preceding me i'd like to focus on your question regarding the last act necessary to give the libby to the contract i want to make one point first counsel's brief discusses the standard of review and he places this as a did novo standard and i respectfully submit that this is not to know he relies on the holy case in which the key element is this there was no dispute as to the key fact in that case that individual was hired in illinois there was no statutory construction necessary in our case the court said preceding your honour's correctly interpreted and looked at and utilized sections one b two and one b three of the alumni worker's compensation act that is the statute in effect there's no disagreement here as to construction of that the statute is clear when it states different factors necessary to establish jurisdiction in illinois with employment everything that was discussed up here preceding me is a question of fact and therefore i would submit that this is a manifest wait  he passed the drug test in indiana and they didn't give me a job he could sue ok well i think the facts are different here though one counsel is focusing on is one or two lines of testimony eventually there was a s well mr prudence testimony upon counsel's questioning call for a legal conclusion and he asked him what's the last act necessary well he's taking an event out of a chronology and stating that the last act agree that the contract was entered into in the end in this case where in terms of simple contract offer except this consideration in your scenario you would already pinpointed the dollar amount things of that sort mr campbell did not come to these to come to a meeting of the minds on all these issues in a contract until he showed up in indiana he went there mr proven was never in illinois or at least there's no evidence to suggest he was in illinois everything condition proceeding to the formation of a contract or is it only an element of the contract and so even in the case that i gave you contra who was injured in tuning the eon in this particular case just beg to differ because the offer and the parties stipulate well stipulated testified to that the contract was entered into on december third what do you say was the summer third or december sixth and it's unclear because the testimony is very ambiguous as to whether or not he did take a load on december third and then come back december second say wait a minute i'm only making twenty two percent as opposed to twenty three percent who is ahead a record of whether read took that load or not they would have been the respondent the employe records probably verified that he did take a load well either way if that is true everything that occurred to finalizing to filippi to the employment contract occurred in indiana understand this something even if you are  contract it is contingent on the occurrence of an event in this case to training right there can be no contract by the admission of everyone until the training is completed does anybody dispute it no but that is not the training took place to be passed on the summer third in eleanore i correct grant well i don't think the record is clear that that actually occurred on december third in illinois i was the training but he didn't go and end up in indiana and pick his  the training take place and the training took place in some of illinois gets and when the right party gets and when oil wrecked and you don't know when he passed the training there's no evidence of that in this record the testimony is that by both parties that illinois he informed them by phone that he had passed the test and they said come and get a car so we know who won they were he testified to it there's no contradictory testimony there were informed on december third the he's just we was he informed with the dispatcher correct the dispatcher wasn't a person who hired or fired right correct all he was doing was saying you know i passed the test and saturday knew what to do he said i'm going to get a of and as a finding of fact the arbitrator concluded that the individuals that conducted and evaluated the training and determine whether petitioner passed or failed their training did not extend an offer of employment to the petitioner that was not mr prudent who was involved in that pass fail you know we don't know what proof do he doesn't know what he did involved in this for as we know he wasn't even in the loop if three past training he just called the dispatcher and said i passed the spitter said go to work which point out on the set list and and actually if you look at the documents today there are some tape december third and some dated december sixth and he comes back and points to records that were signed by him on was after mr proving who was in charge of hiring received notification whether was fax email that this gentleman had passed its safety training for quality trucking quality trucking had that pretty well prerequisite and then one staff information was conveyed to mr prudent in indiana he then had the ability to hire and introducing with education to him because was a lot more but that had to occur before the contract employment was entered into what about this hypothetical and tell me if this is analogous you have an indiana law firm in illinois law student  indiana law firm that goes shoots with law student for hire and says it's contingent upon you passing the bar exam the illinois law student studies and takes the bar exam and on oyo calls the indiana law firm to in your honour's hypothetical there weren't a lot of facts it was just you know go ahead and pass the bar exam which is training necessary for everything and everyone to become an attorney in training and pass the bar exam which is training like driving the truck  the offer of employment that is extended in indiana and the site of the contract of hire and the employment is in indiana has to make any lawyer and they didn't know anything about no one well i think it was one of those was that i think there was a financial consideration for it they didn't want to pay for the additional training and so i think that a lot of the money simple as it could be as simple as they don't walk around