basis of collateral stop constitute fraud under section twenty five point five am the only workers out back it is clear that the arbitrator did not address whether mr fred's alleged prostate cancer gunnies physical restrictions constitute fraud further admitting the civil court complaint not withdrawing dismissing it entirely conveniently the finn argues without citing to the record that a b s allegations of its civil fraud claim is facing threats misrepresentations of the nature weight the hollywood case additionally distinguished old hollywood case relies on section eighteen of the act regarding exclusivity in the in the work comp commission does specifically discuss at least my reading it doesn't necessarily discuss the issues of a column last friday and an insurance fraud that should probably be brought in the circuit court as opposed to the worker's comp case in fact it did not let him get those claims it simply did section twenty five point five million the only work contact were his count fraud action in late two receipt of the total temporary disability benefits as they related to mr frets at allegedly having another job during that time the archer hearing was not a full civil trial which undeniably civil claims such as insurance fraud and common law fraud deserve instead it was a simple finally finding by an arbitrator that ne how fridays this is as related to twenty five point five the difference between insurance and common law fraud are distinctive from from these types of fraud  of the floodgates of litigation will open is an overstatement at the very least in theory that's not the case because only employers who have a valid reason or companies that have a valid reason for asserting common law fraud against an employer would do was lifting weights in the access of what his limitations are restrictions were according to his own their own physician or his own business with that being understand it understood motion for determination of workers compensation fraud and when you tried to do it in my brief but when you compare those allegations the allegations in the complaint before the c them again nature and extent of injury nature and if that disability those allegations are completely say mr calhoun why does that matter what list ar for collateral estoppel the only thing that matters is what the court if you will rule on whether or not the core made a finding on the issue that you're seeking to stop the other party alive and i keep looking at this arbitration award and i don't see anything wrong if they issues that are represented in this case i think it's i think it's sort of it's  arbitrator in terms of the evidence the evidence at the commission hearing was you know the surveillance videos which were viewed several times the testimony by their investigator gluth which spoke to those issues in terms of what he saw and their their doctor who reviewed records with that surveillance video dr mash and gave testimony in terms of nature and extent of the mr frats committed a fraudulent act and that's well that's that was what was before him in terms of the nuance on the abbotts but the question was did mr frets commit a fraudulent attorney's fees and expenses so i think i believe that you know pursuant to the vary from bushels of a worker's compensation act that were set up to deal with this type of issue  that not only do they have the authority but there's there's more than a run of them for that particular circumstance and if i can just speak to that for a moment you know might in my mind this is much more of a collateral sto over garden most two claims and came to the conclusion that it was recognize that those especially the same clients and that rescue the colorado should apply for the air now and that this they went on to determine that there were some equity issues why they were not going to apply the technical rescue caught in that case and with the issues that simply don't exist here the equity issues there were those were missed in the subsequent proceeding on the these types of cases country insurance as you may recall the first district case it was exact same situation here where they brought  circuit court and then what the first district did in that case was they looked at again the actual provisions of the workers compensation that in particular section eighteen section eighteen says all questions arising shall be determined by the commission so they go to that provision and then they went to case law and they considered both employers mutual the steering this is the supreme court decision on that is policy and you know the employer employee or regional or i'm sorry the supreme court case in the supreme court in that case the term and that because that's a question of law and that's something that is properly before the circuit court by the making the decision the supreme court also says that that factual issues that typically are factual issues are left to the case where there was an issue whether the the  fallen misrepresented to medical professionals and to his employer his medical history and again the employer attempted to bring fraud claims based on that alleged fraudulent misrepresentation in the a disputed worker's compensation case all right i mean this is not a worker's compensation case where no to no one's disputing anything but i mean this this is a fairly common worker's compensation case where you have  as to nature and extent of the injury you have seen the surveillance video which is not unusual in these cases and you have competing or opposing medical testimony from the employer's doctors in the treaters and the employees factual findings made by the commission and the arbitrator for these types of cases and that's what was done here and i think it's it's it's clear that the jurors these types of issues is are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the commission there section twenty five point five ways and now sort of detail remedy for any type of fraud that hates placed with respect to these issues  and the last thing i'll say briefly is i don't think there's a conflict in that in the long the strong steel case is pretty clear that that's an isolated issue with that where the fog was discovered after the workers compensation  just a few points talking about the counsel referenced the motion within the arbitration proceeding in the exact allegations regarding nature and extent of injuries being present before the arbitration commission i think what's important to take from the arbitration is the arbitration hearing officers or the actual admit the arbitrators findings  we look at that and he made no decision regarding the the probable misrepresentations that are alleged within the civil claims that's for the collateral sokal because the facts are so different regarding those elements of frog regarding the nature and extent of the injuries now and we talk about section twenty five point five of the act and whether or not there's a subject matter jurisdiction issue  argue that there are there certainly is an issue obviously from from the decisions that have been injured but the the proposition here is that the circuit courts are courts of original jurisdiction and the  come in fall under the act or they do delegated to them by the by the legislature that's how they get their power so it's hard to say that a civil claims that are generally come up in the circuit courts as far as with the original jurisdiction power such as common law fraud insurance fraud that that the commission would have the actual exclusive jurisdiction over those types of actions don't think we would not apply to this situation and i think this circuit court judge that that writing isn't going on as far as discussing the case law we've got countries surance which i believe the first district matter  it has the right to say what the subject matters are stiction argument would be for this particular i would paste specifically in my research i don't think councils found a leader of their district opinion that touches on the issue of the subject matter