accident that case was then appealed to the commission who were first three zero finding if you act of crossing that public street in a crosswalk was not a work related accident order for that to occur for the supreme court to have dismissed my motion to quash for it to come here on the workers compensation merits basically three things would have to happen you would have to file the summons you would have to pay for the record and you would have to demonstrate payment of that record and for the affidavit in order for the jurisdiction to be here of course of this case all three of those have to happen with record was paid for was april first that case if you ever believe thirty days the actual filing of the receipt signed by the commission and the secretary of the commission  days thirty eight days so it could not have been received by the circuit court of madison county until the thirty to thirty nine day because the proof of service placement of the u s mail i believe was on a friday and that's at about thirty five thirty six days so i do not in the way that they look at things this is a statutory peel in the act in and of itself states that those things are necessary time after time of time this court the supreme court starting with lose jones and their state in the subsequent cases the course of the last twenty years or so has made it perfectly clear the summons must be filed and the wrecker probable cause for the record must be paid and it must be filed within the twenty if anything else you at least i think if you're going to even read the law with a bit of an open mind have to pay for it within the twenty day understanding there are cases when it was mailed in when it was accepted by the court because the understanding of course that one of the arguments made in the brief in one of your views made by the circuit judge yes it's there was really no danger to the commission wasn't going to be paid i understand i'm not saying he was going to fail to pay for the record but the fact of matter is the statute in the legislature prepared that section of the act specifically to protect that from occurring the fact that they were going to likely pay the thirty five dollars it seems to me is not with the intent was of yak it says if you're going to take the case to the circuit or if you're going to have the opportunity to meet the workers compensation arena another wor i think it is on whether or not it's a work related action because i think you're going to screw me back to the commission for anything other than the simple mathematical computations not the final word and the cases are very clear and so now the question becomes is were do we get the commission order circuit judge sent it back for further proceedings we we couldn't hear that you couldn't deal from that decision and procedurally the issue you're raising is it is it possible that he did issue a final order on the issue of jurisdiction pursuant to the act in other words i and i understand that at the hand but in that was it states halfway through  mean i think that you i thin on continue with that argument i don't want to continue with the accident argument if you do not want to hear you know your road will continue with requirements have to be satisfied the notion that payment within sixty days with some files i don't think that that satisf from twenty days what the supreme court went into great detail discussing was the determining factor was the fact that the payment was made more than ten days prior to return day thereby flow that if the clerk is doing what he's supposed to do he's not if you file a request summons within twenty days he's not going to issue that summons until he's paid what happened here in jones and some other case is what i had issued a summons before payment was made the argument is that's not a to not need to discuss the return to eight to ten a requirement for preparation time for preparation of the record or any of these other matters it simply would have said pain actual pain within twenty days is sufficient without discuss the substantial compliance or however to get to that and i don't want to use the word crotch but i mean to get to that option it seems to me triggering that even have that city or requirements paying for the record and obviously producing the evidence that it got so i don't think you can get to the substantial compliance in the which can't get that door open until you have the key and the key is to actually pay for the record  he's got the interpretation it turns on the return date you're asking whether or not either this court or the supreme court has held that you know where the payment was all the work of this were made one of which was outside in twenty days was ruled hall i believe that you guys did it despite you could have a right to decide on that issue because there was a specific motion that was filed and it was ruled