get in and get out of the u b s truck corner times a day with a twenty one step which would be about two thirds the height of that table now that was the background of his employment experience very reliable employee  what you're more interested in would be the claim of error with respect to my efforts to amend the complaint or the application for benefits on that day of the hearing prior to the start of the hearing the commission arbitration mission said august twenty ninth of two thousand and five with less than nine months after the first injury to the right knee in the treatment that mr bigley only had he had one surgery to correct the problems with the with me and he had three surgeries on the right now the arbitron commission uses their authority to deny the benefits for the second injury to the right knee on the case of more that has been cited by respond notice of the entry no doz of the hearing and did not appear at the hearing and then they try to amend to say that they were sponsible for payment of the initial obligation for the injury i do not know how more can be cited this some sort of a priority to say that we an amendment to the claim that we filed within the statue of limitations period of three years that moore says that we can't i'm in the date accident resulting in two injuries isn't that a problem the statute of limitations yes of course there is because the special limitations expired be twelve two of zero seven and yes we knew that would be a susceptible to injury is an aggravation the robber trader said it was an aggravation in his opening comments when i made the motion to a man and then later on he changes he dropped the aggravation i mean let me ask you to aggravation i think it is i really do i mean if you have a weakness that's been repaired and then you have another similar injury within a short date after i think it's an in the same place again i understand what you're saying but the mistress is like a membrane in and it gets torn in one place i think it's weakened throughout so you i think would be more susceptible to an injury in the same area which mitchell and i think you made reference to that if i mean i understand you're trying to make an argument that it's an extension of the same injury right right you're on your honor i would i my question is where is the where's the medical support in the record for there your own if i just have a minute here i haven't i think in dr mitchell's in his letter he talked about that and he said that when you have an injury i believe beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty that michael made will will have need to have knee replacement surgery within each knee at some point in future i believe the current degenerative changes that he has his knees will continue to progress in will progress faster than usual that it could happen again rather easily not you know as a initial type of injury that just happened i mean i think that he was more susceptible to the second injury and also quarter versus decatur hospital case it says it relates back to the initial injury then and the claim is well within the system imitations then you we have the right to have that i'm in that complain get fifteen percent of a leg award this arbitrator get eighty percent for two very serious need i mean basically you've got about six weeks compensation or in addition to that you know what address today would be the end of this concept of intervening events in the vesa common law doctrine that certainly has viability in the common law courts but i think i think that  e intervening event has to have some sort of external force to cause injury or third party involved or generally speaking i think of in terms of something not related to the work comp injury setting you know i know that when we talk about intervening events the classic case of someone is in an auto accident and on their way to the hospital in the ambulance they are people in that intersection and they say well that's an intervening event this is the next injury but that isn't what happened here mr meek little was delivering packages that was his job he got in out of that brown truck one or times a day and you know he has he had some run fifty three start to have any problems but not enough that he get anything about it but then when the when this dramatic sequence happened why we thought plame the respondent has always been fully informed of the date of the type of the injury on the did happen mr big will injuries and when an injury or purse vision make an assessment an injury and the ability of the employee to be employed in the future here mr has been told by his doctor that he's going to have to have his knees replaced there's no question about that so his choice was keep working and it's going to happen sooner or you know we get enough t basis of an intervening event and i don't think that was i think it's fair so if you have any questions i'll be happy to try to respond i don't believe there are thank aggravation and not a second accident and that just doesn't actually play out in this case at all why is it not in their vision it's not aggravation because for most after the first accident his doctor d out of five there's no swelling at this point i recommend you return to full duty work with risk no scription no restriction and then he goes back to work no complaints no business to the doctors four months later he has a completely new accident completely new documented accident here it's documented in the medical records council keeps alluding to this is a repetitive trauma case here but there's no opinions provided by any medical doctor that based on the claim its job duties these conditions of his needs were caused by his repetitive work clearly the histories are two separate and distinct was there any medical testimony of this he was more susceptible to the school i was provided with an application for the first accident date i was not provided with an application for any other accident date here we litigated the case based on the first accident the rules say one application per injury counsel didn't comply with that rule as far as an amendment is concerned he made an oral motion before the arbitrate or to amend the complaint will even the rules state with an amendment you have to file a amended application has to be written on there meant it has to be served a council there was never a filed amended application in this case so there's no compliance with the rules here the arbitrator made the right decision with regard to that we've been litigated this one case here and there was an accepted accident there was causation it was the nature and extent case he had a full duty release based on this nature and extent case let me ask you this he threw out something everything that we usually s i would be prejudiced if you would allow if you would allow the relief the council is asking in this case i i wrote my brief we draft these proposed decisions i based it on the application base it on the testimony at trial i did not base it on a non existent application or an amended application which was never allowed i based it on that to allow him to allow the relief he wants right now would have met would have denied me an opportunity to don't believe you could get around that if it was treated as repetitive trying to claim the patient showed the date of the manifestation is the first accident and there was no request to a men for a new the station made the request was to ed an additional that's correct that's correct and again i don't think this is a retired repetitive trauma case i don't believe the evidence supports that one thing counsel indicated is his client was forced to retire in his arguments here if there was a second application i've been given an opportunity to defend that i probably would have brought in a supervisor to testified what was he complaining was he having a difficult time i probably would have gotten i need to refute the opinion from dr mitchell there is far as whether or not he needed the total knee replacements in the relationship to the different accidents there i would have completely defended the case differently but as it was i had the one application that was what was decided by the court in accordance with the rules and the facts show two distinct active accidents here unless the court has any other questions at all i have  an accident or claim and but that's i think the case really should turn a what's the definition of a claim before the industrial commission worker's comp commission is it's what's the disability to the employee the claim is the injury to the right knee and everybody gets to name two knees so we haven't left need is injured on the right is injured so i'm asking the the commission to in this court to say the claim includes the second injury on august twenty ninth of two thousand and nine with respect to the room that's more than one sense i'm sorry but with respect to the release in our area i'm from sugar illinois and we have a i think a pretty good orthopedic surgeon named dr cinna and there's others in our area dr mitchell dr myr think in the group they will give you a release because it to fool duty because they know that if they don't give the full duty release there's not going to be a job for these it doesn't matter what their condition is they know it and i mean i've had that i had people come in the office they get a full duty i said if full duty yeah otherwise they're not going to go back to work and they have family support i mean that's that's a fact and maybe nobody wants to admit it but i just tell you that with my experiences all that kind of stuff but if he doesn't go back with full duty he's not going to have a job and he asked for another job within the company there is no other job yes we're a ten inch step down truck no we don't have it you have a twenty one and a half or twenty and  suggesting that it has to be in writing i think if you have an application for benefits it has all the information it's there and i amend that complaint to be the date of the injury i think that's good enough and he in effect he's got a copy of going to claim for a single hearing in a single solution but that's what i'm asking for those this is a single decision here for injury to the right knee for purposes of future employment and that's what the workers comp is about