essentially this is a case where there was a mistake that was made in the arbitrator's decision and no one caught it it was not directly appealed by sunni during a by a well i think at this point your honor there's we re several issues in our brief as to why we think that the circuit court's decision was two that i'd like to talk about today with you relates to the question of of when a circuit court is presented within one thousand feet do they have the authority to ask whether the commission's decision  was justified from the standpoint of whether there's a void do they have jurisdiction to do with they did and if they did have jurisdiction then their powers are limited to basically enforcing the award as it's stated one of the issues that we've raised today is whether or not in this case the circuit court should have taken a look at this case and asked did the commission and i say commission because when an arbitrator's award is rendered it's not appealed it becomes a commission we believe the circuit court here should have taken our two need to look at the circuit at the commission's decision and say did it have the power to enter the award as it as it entered it now that and there's two parts of the award here certainly the commission has the authority to enter a death benefit award obviously we know that the question is does the commission which has limited your stiffen on what it hears created by the workers compensation act does it have the authority in jurisdiction to render an award for benefits that are not provided by the worker's compensation act and as as we've argued in our brief that benefits are controlled by section seven of the act section seven specifically refers to we calculate benefits for death benefits we calculate the percentage in the amounts by looking at the rates that are provided in section eight b eight b says that the rate is calculated we have the average weekly wage times the sixty six and two thirds percent and that's the rate that we at the moment that it did this is very instructive here because what we're saying here is not that they couldn't award death benefits but that the amount violated the statute they made an award they had no power  that reason we think it's a void award and as we cited in our brief you know avoid order is made when a court acts and without the inherent power to enter that particular order entered the the commission here did not have the inherent power to enter an award in excess of the max rate of the death penalty and the law says when an agency enters a citizen and has no statutory power to enter it's void and a void order can be attacked at any time and so for those reasons we think that this court should find that one the circuit court should consider that perhaps remanded but two i think the court under three sixty six has the power to look at this and say yes we can evaluate th only void if there is not jurisdiction i don't agree with the distinction you're making between the ability to into the order versus the amount i don't think the amount goes  what theoretically yes it but as as you're on a pointed out new party picked this up and the thing i think is important to keep is a backdrop in this case is that we were always obligated to pay the statutory rate in this case and we did we paid for we walked into the arbitrating room that day and in two thousand and four and we paid it every day afterwards on the way up until it was discovered in the souls controversy developed this is not a situation where we've refused to arbitrator in this case didn't have the authority to make that a war so you just walk away and i think in a case like this where there's a portion of the award that's justified certainly the death benefits thank you but we can only guess what happened back then we tried to reconstruct it but we the people you can always reconstruct things that happened that made you out of it i can guess that it was done by rote i i think in this case i don't know it understood when we started making these payments before this arbitration that our obligation was supposed to death benefits of the maximum rate we paid those and the fact that no one picked that up over the course of time until they they stumbled across it in the third party litigation which is what believe happened as they were putting together what set off stock that's when this all came about so so we think one that we have an argument here and i think a strong argument i think that we cited one of the cases and forgive me if i'm wrong but i think it might have it there was a criminal case we said in our briefs well the talk about exactly what you did raise your honor but i do think in this case we do have the ability so look not only at the judgment on the personal jurisdiction or the subject matter but look at the  inherent power of the issue the order and that's where we get the fact that this was issued without forty of the statute now the second thing i want to point out here is the the argument that we raised about the the  up can i determine what the commission was intending to do here how much money i'm supposed to actually enter a judgment for and in the grand that's case there was a distraction see in the order as to the amount and what had happened there it was that there was an arbitration decision that was entered under the perm partial disability commission modified that and made it a permit total disability but the on the activation dates they had one amount payable before that date and another amount payable after that if a lesser amount and the interesting part of that case is the employer then after the appeal they appealed it nobody office through their whole feel process in that case when the time came to pay the award the employer cut the cut for the so the court said there's an inherent inconsistency in the commission's decision by awarding what they call the permanent total disability benefit under section eight but yet awarding an amount that was inconsistent with and percentage so what i'm saying zero six and there's an inconsistency about which one of those so therefore it can't be an inherent inconsistency when we look at gonesse it says as in determining what the award is where the with a commission says pursuant to statute we can are you know or a week and what we're saying is that when you look at the death benefit statute that it was made pursuant to section seven clearly makes reference and it says benefits have to be determined under section eight you make that awarding the circumstance and it says the mechanics of it and when you do the mechanics the numbers don't match so that's an inherent inconsistency in the decision of this project quarterbacking that say the court can question the jurisdiction of the case in these nineteen decision what we're saying here we're not saying it's too large in other words you could have awarded lesser than fifty percent of a person you could have awarded twenty five percent so we're not going to pay that no you can't do that air says they cannot do that you can attack evidence rulings you can attack misperceptions of case law that type of thing but here we're saying that the award is why long because it violated the statute and it was foiled and the commission had commission didn't have the authority to award and that's why it's void and that's why there's an inconsistency and that's why we're asking the court to reverse this and to limit the judgment that's been entered to that you know when you have a death benefit and you know  paid over time it's going to be paid from today forward to whenever the terms are met and satisfied now the differences n so if you want to enter judgment enter judgment for the ten twelve a week and we don't have any problem with that and we think that's completely  obviously there's future payments and it protects him there i have no problem with that the issue that we have is that obligation has always been from day one the pay is gentleman that benefits are subject to the maximum rate and we've done that and i know there's some stay i know a somebody it's not boy then i say how much i look at it i shall can't tell how much i have to figure out how much i can look at the award as long as it says a word pursuant to section x here six and seven then i can find an inherent inconsistency if one exists at that point if you those hurdles then it becomes time to enter the war knesset different body thank you thank you i think the court understands here that the controlling precedent in this case is the stuff that you've seen in unfortunately buried in the second the last portion of my brief and third and the fourth district the fourth district case being the case that just disconnect you sat on all of those cases use language essentially it's follow some hole in the side of the t is the short case in which it was held that the circuit court must if a certified copy of the award or decision is presented after the judgment even though the award may be too the circuit court may refuse to enter judgment only for example when a lack of jurisdiction appears on the face of the record even though the a war is too large now the only argument set a good race against that have been and i credit my opponent for being very imaginative here reading a  the case the current its case which i respectfully suggest does not stand for the proposition that you can look outside the the document itself the decision of the arbitra or the commission itself to find the consistency now when you look at the the opinion or excuse me the decision of of arbitrator white in this case it's very  two dollar figures mentioned in the whole pay a one dollar figure is that thirteen hundred four dollars per week the other dollar figure is the forty two hundred for burial expenses there's nothing about this arc this document that is in any way inconsistent on its face this article this document which found that pages a seventy eight of the of the appendix doesn't even refer to the statute under which is it should be bulletproof ok now we can talk about the idea of well maybe if there wasn't jurisdiction in the first place and there is some some case law does insert subject matter jurisdiction that arbitrator white her job is to determine in this case what the debt with the death benefit ought to be generally speaking they are charged with determining what benefits ought to be awarded they write down a number that they think ought to be the award sometimes that might be too hard sometimes it might be too low there's a remedy to fix that appeal it within the commission within thirty days that didn't happen to say that she didn't have the power to ensure that kind of stretches the concept of  what's how or a person in her in her position would be if she for example if she would have said in addition to awarding the thirty hundred four dollars said that and i'm requiring the employer to remedy the condition that cost this man staff that obviously would be passed her subject matter jurisdiction but that's not what happened here when when discussing that  idea about did she have the power to do this we discuss actually two cases that were actually cited by the by the appellate here the  clearly deficient it backed a lot of things that should have been included in that work and it was obviously deficient and nevertheless the  the rule the argument will allow a collateral attack on an order or whenever an agency failed to follow exact letter of the statutory provision a party could merely point to any provision of the statute which was  you can attack these cases collaterally by saying that well the underlying decision maker here somehow crafted an order that was outside of what the range are not asking for real it again we're not asking you to take that evidence we're not asking you to reweigh any evidence we're not asking you to do anything other than say that our obligations ended with the saturday for a maximum right they couldn't allow that doc to testify that was an abuse of discretion all this type of stuff i can't do that but if we adopt the argument that councils making that alias allows us just overlook any question about whether the commission originally had jurisdiction or whether or not the decision is inherently inconsistent needs clarification so the circuit court knows what it's supposed to enforce than the entire line of cases with garnets the burns case and it relies on the full in case the kennedy case arnel case have to be overrule because they do allow you to do that so i think that's a that's a misstatement you can read them together if you look at them in the manner that we're suggesting we're not here to argue that there was too much awarded i'm not saying it was should have been fifty percent of a person i'm saying that they should have awarded what the law allows it to be awarded which is will say the last thing you want a good run of the question of interest and i didn't address it in my arguments but they obviously didn't brief our point here is whether it does if you visit case was was passed it was the energy that was my case the one thing that it did that we disagree with about one was that it allowed interest to reach back in the worker's comp that way but having that reach back in a work comp case now you have conflicting with section and of the work contact which is a specific interest act that applies to work comp cases and it says in a work then from the data the one thousand before you apply judgement interest because now you have a government then you read the statutes consistently and they both have a meaning and neither one needs the meaning of the other and i think that's consistent we have to commission decision we are in essence making now the commission's decision a judge subject to that one percent interest and that's what we think that's wrong thank you thank you will but take the ma