consistent with thomas st the commission the court also addressed all issues that were in dispute that included causation as well as past and prospective medical t t d was not in dispute so i do believe that this judgment based on the fact that they did address all the issues that were in dispute what the commission never addressed never addressed prospective medical medical expenses or  to decide the undecided issues medical expenses perspective and t g v well the arbitrator's finding did no respondent has paid all the reasonable and necessary charges and that they are not entitled to perspective medical not entitled prospective medical because there's no causation so did these did the circuit court open up this well you keep dancing around the issue the issue is it was remained that yes the circuit court found that the commission's decision was against a man of this weight of the evidence but it was remanded also to award medical expenses and prospective medical care and not appeal that's the supreme court's version final judgment leaving open all of these questions you have to concentrate on what was left open because the court ruled whether it's correct or erroneous there's issues that were never specifically ruled out money issues that were never specifically respondent has paid all necessary charges for services in this case  the causation was you know it was the night and that he that the respondent paid all reasonable unnecessary charges for all reasonable and necessary medical services so it's my understanding and i read from that that that means both future medical expenses as well as past the future in advance no your honor he was stating that because of the lack of causation that he's not entitled to future medical you know the not the commission's go ok we're talking about a current lumbar spine condition right that's correct your honor and the arbitrator and the commission's fail to prove that his current condition of building was related doing that i believe well might be argued were proper appeal given proper jurisdiction but at this point the issue is whether that's right or wrong is medical care if any consistent with  if we don't have jurisdiction we can't rule anything other than we don't have jurisdiction sure i understand there are i let me ask it another way what is the specific amount of the expenses and the prospective medical care that you're appealing from that you want us to address what's the amount your honor i can do is has it been set does that point out to you why we don't have jurisdiction was it said by anybody yet i understand that no and it was not set it was it would have been located right there well would have been set in me and the exhibits and then again in the arbitrators order where it says the respondent has the arbitrator forget the condition here and we don't know what that is you can't tell us what that is correct and that's based off the commission's decision where it affirms and adopt the arbitrator's decision specifically on medical can i ask you a question sure you're on based on the court's decision is his order subject to execution i'm sorry i execute on it did it did  in my it i think that it was a final judgment because it it was the commission was a final on the you're appealing from the circuit court's decision although we reviewed the commission's decision you appeal from circuit court's decision your court's decision has to be a final order so let's assume it's based on three main factors the st long is that it's just your had a well documented medical history low bar complaint and ridiculous symptoms before the work injury as well more symptoms are also identical essentially before and after the work injury which shows questioning today i think you have kind of made it clear what your position is on whether this is a final appealable order i read over the the order again myself just now  think that the law says that essentially only in cases where the commission on remand has been ordered to act in accordance with the direction of the circuit court and conduct proceedings on uncontroverted and so that all matters are merely make a mathematical calculation the circuit court's order is considered a final order for purposes of appeal and that the admin versus workers compensation commission case from back in two thousand and twelve so in reviewing the order i think that it probably does fall short in terms of the specificity in the mathematical calculations that are required under the law to make this a final appealable order so i think i think your question are are well founded  i can respond to the rest of the the argument in terms of causation if you'd like client's time run time with a list of my family members have a different view