award to mr scarpelli with appropriate findings of fact there was one small mistake in that first order it was simply the date of it so he and his own mother can recall that order and issue correctly redo the findings of fact from the original decision but now took the liberties of changing the decision entire whether and that it can be done has been a journey for and with then i went back to this case and went under the hood and said i didn't know then how does that affect my case and after coming out from under the hood after further deliberation i ended up finding there's an exception to what judge holder said so now we're here because of the possibility that there is a plethora will stop with respect to whether net the order in this case  or not so all we now have a line up of cases on each side of this issue we have the garcia case which says that when an individual when they are betrayed or for that matter the commission civil case this is a motion for reconsideration and the arbitrator certainly had the right to reconsider and change is decision no question those cases are against me twenty three order is certainly not on my side i will have a look at look at the rule twenty three order the first district said it's based upon court to do that under a motion for reconsideration a judge can reconsider the facts of the case and possibly enter a different decision one thousand and is not a motion for reconsideration if this core affirms or follows the rule twenty three order you will be sending a message and that just a message you'll be making a law that says that certainly can be used in support of but you also have the power to overrule it or to set the record straight and whether in at one thousand half the words use some of the court say reopen some of the court say it's an all of the some of the court say you can only do what it allows you to do correct yet there's a lot of confusion in this area  is in support of their position and soon to you before the petition for review was with gum i'm sorry wasn't there a letter from the city saying we made it to me such my mistake before the petition for review was withdrawn yes and don't think we didn't discuss that  mean certainly we had discussions about it was fair warning you might say that they were going to make their money was ok there was but i very honestly i felt that their only haven't you was through the commission i never expected that they would take this other avenue that they did by taking it to a mystery because they they had no ruling and which orders of the right order of the day the motion that i brought under section of said eighteen i felt was the motion the city would have should have and could have should have brought in conjunction with the review that i did and then we would have because the city says in their brief  n they say that there was an issue at that well except the city never raised the issue you know they wanted to they wanted to send letters or talk about in the background but they never wanted to get in front of the commission with court before their own judge who said to me counsel one of your claims ready to pay the bunny i have a question is this under going through powers i'm from downstate we have a small claims court down there so you know when the court as anyone challenge this proceeding but a procedure by the way or i think it's been brought up papers like it's the same if you'll allow me out of what i found more interesting was that i mean front of a judge is being same to you until the city came in and said no it's not a worker's compensation claim and they removed so here we are today  thank you counsel counsel you may respond the record by obama's two years after he voluntarily dismissed his appeal to the commission of arbitrator's decision the commission lacked a jurisdiction to revisit that decision an addition to the jurisdiction problem the argument that the arbitrator lacked authority to enter that award is barred by collateral stop all and is maryland first of all the commission quickly determined that it lacked jurisdiction back in two thousand and nine mr scott pelley as workers compensation claim was resolved by an arbitrator the arbitrator issued to decide that were recalled in order to correct clerical errors and then the second crack the decision awards cappelli about thirty eight thousand seven hundred thirty three hundred less than the first  scott pelley appealed that then voluntarily dismissed the appeal in august of two thousand and nine he returned to the commission almost two years later after having lost in the city's action to collect its overpayment that had made an arbitration award go back and revisit a final award unless a statute specifically authorizes that under section one thousand be enough there were only two options for altering the arbitrator's decision correcting clerical errors within fifteen days or a timely petition for review filed within thirty days and that mr scott pelley filed an appeal and with your right the commission no longer had jurisdiction over his claim with that decision having become final with the dismissal of the appeal it simply does first had all the first district appellate court rejected those arguments and the p r a having been denied that decision has become final and opposing counsel only argument against first district reaches some decision that we disagree with that for example we're free to decide the issue that legal issues the opposite direction but you're going to be is going to even if we disagreed with this first district because that's an express exception and for good reason because when the elements of collateral estoppel apply that the party against humans involved should not be able to relive again the same issue again take a second bite at the comply with statutory requirements as the core and the first scarpelli decision noted and citing cases like newkirk and moeller the focus is on whether or not the arbitrator had personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction and the authority to enter the order that was entered and here there's no question that the arbitrator have the authority to withdraw the first amended decision first correct a decision and correct it and then enter a correct order if there were errors in that correct order the appropriate force would be to have appealed those areas directly to the commission for all these reasons we do submit that the judgment of the that provides for how the city can collect a debt due and owing the city then that was the subject of the litigation of the first regardless of where the dummies from well the debt it was specifically provides for  debt defines debt as including an overpayment so an overpayment on a judgment would be a debt under the ordinance and that's what the city collected he collected here and there were challenges raised in scarpelli one to the department of administrative hearings authority to do river that would i believe so i'm going to study the ordinance closer to see if there are any exceptions or we have anything like that might apply in or any particular circumstances yes this is a provision that the city of chicago does is to go after certain debts there's there's nothing that impairs the integrity of that rule twenty three order terms of collateral stop all of that if you're arguing your correct that's correct i'm aware of no exceptions all the elements are met  i don't recall that being a reason why the industrial commission turned down my request to have the record correct i remember them saying we have a final final order therefore it's only done for you and that's what i mean have a question for you in your reply brief you indicate that the arbitrator second corrected decision is void as the arbitrator does not have subject matter jurisdiction to do what he did in the other case the first district scarpelli does not deny that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this claim for workers compensation he argues that the arbitrator lacked inherent authority to enter them a decision so it was a calculated decision here in this court to abandon the inherent authority claim of whiteness and argue voidness based on subject matter jurisdiction in other words do you think you can get around the you came out with the wood dale electric case only i think two weeks after i failed my pre and i immediately came in and filed a motion to sub for additional authority and in any case you recognize we don't said you can argue