occupational disease act and though i raise all issues in my brief i like to spend time today mainly on one out of the section one out of the occupational disease act  as you know no cause of action under the occupation of disease act specifically no compensation shall be payable to or on account of any occupational disease unless disablement occurs within two years of the last state of the last exposure here quite simply this condition precedent of having in an earlier wasn't proven does not exist in the record but about the argument that this was not caused by a single discrete incident it was the stress of the job over a period of years how does that jive with your argument i think the  statue reposes still in place in other words there still has to be something that happened in those two years there are plenty of stories of things happening in the seventies and eighties by my witness and by his witnesses but nothing that happened in those in those two years are you saying your there was no testimony as to a specific incident very two years that's right but wasn't there testimony that these kind of incidents were all incident during that two years it's not enough to say here's examples of the kinds of incidents and those kind of examples have been right up to the day i was on that's right that's my argument exposure periods under one half but the petitioner arguing you know this is unfair to the petitioner because we have such a small period of time of exposure but the law's the law and and addressing your concern  there isn't a problem a bubble presumption in this case as firefighters enjoy right now so it's not enough just to say that acts of heroism you know just are robotically presume to happen right up to the last day of employment he has the burden to prove it that with this with what we go back to my question wasn't there testimony that these kinds of things that he described as having happened in earlier years also continued to  fight and i don't know all that stressful that's right and they were with mr khalid nine in the seventy's and eighty's but is that enough to show that there was this exposure i mean i think we should hold him to one out which requires that there's this two right if he says these kinds of terrible things happened all the time with a two year period without describing a specific one he's out if you're right i think i think that's right that's my argument because i think by doing that you're just giving him the benefit of a presumption that it just must have happened he even argued in his brief this happened the day before i retired and if it was such a horrendous exposure exposures to trauma and injury other people's i believe that unfortunately for mr calm down his memory was very very big and he tells me about things that happened decades before mr allman mr lockhart told me about things told me and told  saying you recognise that in this case there's nothing to sustain that there were these traumas compelling enough to establish the disablement within two years that's right it's against the manifest way the evidence there's nothing in the record showing between th two year period there that there was any exposure general testimony about i'm going to america vance are saying it's not sufficient or should that is not always in this case the commission found a reasonable inference i suppose that's how they found it but there i really have nothing further i mean i would let my brief speak for itself about a causal connection and for these reasons and other reasons in my briefs i respectfully request that this court reverse the circuit court's decision denying t t d medical and permanen good morning your honors me and please the court counsel my name is thomas judah i represent the defendant in this case and number one the record clearly establishes that we met all the requirements of one f despite the fact that the issue was never raised at the hearing in this case over for the workers compensation commission and i was very pleased to hear the court's familiarity from the last case before this one and how waiver of an issue before the commission means that this court can't hear the cited by the plaintiff i would call the court's attention to the record page thirty five in which the arbitrator went through the matters in dispute matters in dispute are excellent and or exposure causal relationship medical bills temporary total disability benefits name and spend if it's nature an extent of injury counsel this at any rate may reflect the issues the matter said the issue here and mr eiseley stated on page thirty issue legally but why would i in my direct examination of a witness elicit and focus testimony that exposures continued up to live that he left employment when no one raised the issue why would i produce evidence for an issue that no one told me was going to be in the case but the reality is that the evidence clearly shows that my client was exposed to the evidence of his occupation up to the very day he left counsel conveniently tells this court that my client retirement my client didn't retire my client was placed on involuntary disability as a result of the performing paramedic e m s duties that exposed him to what what one letter describes as carnage up through the very day he left his employment his employment terminated june two thousand nine hundred ninety eight pursuant to a letter which is found in the record of pages five seventy one and that you see this letter is three or four places five seventy one six thirty seven and it says dear bob i be valuated mr collingwood on the results of  as of firefighter paramedic for the village and he's quoted his recent cycles psychologic stressors his recent psychologic stress was recent duhigg roommate his physical condition and certainly  their effect on his capabilities doctors enroll in the brief presented by the defendant is described as a doctor who has no knowledge of my client's condition he's a doctor who is a personal friend he was never actually the treating physician of my client and had no knowledge of what my client did doctors said rowe is the villages doctor and he is the motivator he is the reason my client doesn't work for the village of eminent physician in the state of illinois understanding the risks and hazards of paramedics on a daily basis doctors said lho was the person who created the paramedic program for the village of arlington heights and five other municipalities and i'm going to go into what doctors it was said when he gave his opinion on equivocally of causal connection but i wanted to know i normally don't read to the court but the bigger the record here is so after it but one has been waved in and we're going to connect this up later but the letter unsolicited to my client recognizing his service for the village says quote most people will never know the sacrifices you have made in terms of time lack of sleep and meals that have been hurriedly snatched between calls they could not imagine the environmental conditions in which you perform a deficit lead such chaos cars overturned and pools of mud accident scenes with physical and human carnage or buildings filled with smoke and hazardous gases many could not look past your professional exteriors to see the price you have paid emotionally after years of encountering stressful situations involving pain was of mice life and in the case of children years of lost potential my client then testified at my request they said in the last five years what type  of these events have you witnessed and he said every time i go to work i have three to five calls up through the last day that i work and that testimony is supported by deputy chief lockhart who worked with my client up until he was forced to leave the employment for the village of arlington heights and he was asked how often did you go on calls with with mr colleague man and and he answered hundreds to thousands that was deputy chief lockhart's testimony which is the witness offered by the village and then he was asked well how many of those calls involve life or death situations and he has to meet about he referred to those as advanced life support calls and he said a third of the calls we went on were of phantom magnitude  waiver aside you would say that the testimony establishes the collar closing counsel's argument he testified to and going recent for manic events within the two year period even though he didn't incident that's correct that's correct with all this evidence produced realignment if you will yes and he won that actually we have i didn't i didn't get into that that's another line of argument but my argument is that that we didn't have to try this case at all this was a dispute this was a disputed case before the alan complaints firefighters pension fund and all the doctors whose reports we used in this case were or were except for doctors at low part of the pension case in the pension fund found that he was disabled as a result of an occupational exposure at work and he got a line of duty disability and the reason we're doing workers comp is this is a pre nine hundred seventy seven worker this petitioner was hired in one thousand nine hundred sixty nine before the offset provision of the pension code was an ac and that's why we're here but he's already to you know he proved this case before the pension fund so ok there's there's no question the village wave this be one answer is not a jurisdictional requirement it's a statute of limitations and see even though i wasn't asked it just so happens that the record clearly establishes exposures up through june two thousand nine hundred ninety eight the last day of work and but for doctors in lowell mr colligan would have worked  thank you in the request for hearing counsel mention that i had waived accident because it wasn't marked it was marked it's accident really what it what it is here is exposure it's under the occupational disease act and at the time by the way i didn't know what what i was dealing with whether it was a disease or an accident or an impairment there was no discovery so we tracked th accident was an issue that's on appendix nine of my brief assuming you did that he's raising a specific he's quoting from a transcript which allegedly was specifically asked whether in that this was something there's any other issue such as this issue of repose if you want to present at the trial he's holding he was saying no i don't think it's when we have an occupational disease act question i and i check accident as one of the issues i expect that not only what i expected will hear what the accident was what the exposure in this case was and there just simply wasn't one to rely on recent traumatic events to rely on stanley's and lows record which is a very good narrative summary of the police about firefighters john is not sufficient for that two year one f period that you argue that the evidence that the stabbing disabling within two years at figuring that if you come after after the arbitration hearing yes it was it was pretty clear from all of the evidence that there wasn't that two year statute the pros  remember this is a condition precedent and this is something that has to happen before you file your work your workers comp your occupational disease act application it's almost as if say for example in a worker's comp case you don't have an accident but you you claim one in your application and you file the file the application and it's done so within the two year staff your motivations but there was no accident i checked off facts and because there was no exposure here and so that statute of repose  is lost i again i would i would ask the court to look at these cases particularly whitney and dickerson which have not been overturned which poll say that  merely filing an application within the appropriate number of years after exposure under section six six e is not sufficient if the employee does not establish disablement following the last exposure within the applicable period under one out that that is still good law that hasn't been overturned and this is whitney that i'm citing from and the run f is a statute of repose and therefore a condition precedent it's a jew it's  fictional requirement not a statue of limitations addressing counsels question about rescue caught on the stoppel that argument was lost at all levels and mainly that was for two reasons first that we weren't a party that the village was not a party to the pension funds case and secondly that it wasn't the exact same question so i don't think that ensued you can just rely on the pension case to win his workers co