morning just as well so my name is kevin bieber and i represent oh very campbell this is a case involving an illinois resident who was an over the road truck driver injured out of state 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 there exclusively all on behalf of all here and so there's a lot of steps that go into the hiring process there has to be a background check they're asked to 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 trade 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 as we look at the paperwork when the moment you think you're missing a step or the ar to every step necessary to be hired by indian companies take your test in indiana do 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 richer house  facts are in it 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 a good medium could he have picked up their truck when they say it happens here and some illinois then the court is required to say the test that we use is what is the last that and that's not what was done by the arbitrator in the commission with the arbitrator said it is clearly with the exception of of training regarding loading unloading takers the contract for hire was made in illinois well clearly that's the wrong test the issue isn't we're going to look at all these things and ignore be looking at well 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 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 it did novo standard and i respectfully submit that this is not to know what he relies on a phone 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 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 will hire you as a truck driver for five fifty five dollars an hour om commencing on such and such a date if you pass or dr 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 parties agree that the contract was entered into in the end in this case when 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 not he did take a load on december third and then come back december sixth and 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 contract that 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 he passed it on the summer third in eleanor 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  with dispatcher correct the dispatcher wasn't 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 lot 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 tissue that was not mr prudent who was involved in that pass well he appeared on the third obviously and pick up a load  well and then he comes back with a lot as you point out on the set list and and actually if you look at the documents too there are some to december third and some dated december sixth and he comes back and points pointed out it was after mr proving who was in charge of hiring received notification but there was fax email that this gentleman had passed its safety training for quality trucking there was a lot more but if 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 in indiana 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 difference simple contract law elements of offer acceptance and consideration so he would want her acceptance consideration on the contrary views of those subject mightest terms to conditions subsequent that in that particular case the concord sort of been entered into of the condition subsequent is not to fill the conference on force is it is improper interpretation or is it not well yes although the standard here lawyer and they didn't know anything about no law 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 once we get jurisdiction over a case nobody here has jurisdiction to do anything in this case put on us and motions he have to be filed before this court th he communicated with you directly you don't respond and that was my answer and you do nothing and that was my answer instead of the two of you go over there and get this arbitrator or whatever it was decide signing orders and now we