thousand and then the next one the wrong person sorry did i mean they sound like you're some kind of games being played that but that's what they said has never been refuted is it well as plaintiff i can't produce what's not within correct he did at the point that counsel represented they have to me in two thousand and seven i assumed that you know that was the case they were being truthful but it's plain as position that not producing what commissioner tim you know has requested it would seem to be that if those records were in fact a part of defendants in possession of defendant that they would be produced to show that that is against your clients i was the employer imap them responsible well they haven't filed anything at that point but one can surmise that if they're not paid at some point something will be filed but the language in the contract i believe also said anything  were free to negotiate them isn't that different than they just had to pay whatever the dollar amount was because if it takes two people to negotiate for the next thing i said you know exactly be a dollar amount you know there was no time limit contract but certainly at the point where the group health insurance carriers are contacting plaintiff and pursuing collection of those liens and claims and defending his advice that that's happening  then needs to be responsible as the contract states for those lanes and claims of the group health insurance for your claim the delay really do this for me until the following g d word from the big contract was signed until you were contacted by the seven and if they have a point they were certainly free to negotiate the liens and claims at that point but they chose to do nothing and then in november when the group carriers were personally a plaintiff or collection they chose to continue to penalties was filed for penalties and a choice he's under section one thousand and sixteen as at that point it was becoming doubtful that defendants representations they had a clerical error had occurred in the ch those statements were becoming doubtful as well and as the record will show defendant continued in the dilatory tactics of that being responsible for those  manifest weight of the evidence should also point out that the court cases uniformly state that whether to assess penalties is a discretionary act of the commission commission heard these matters  determination of penalties is extremely factual it is a case by case basis cognizant of these standards i believe the commission decision this matter was correct and i'd like to break it into number on the sixteenth it isn't faxed to our office until the twenty first and the copy is illegible these are pink papers they're being faxed technology you know is improving but it's still not perfect i it so we don't actually receive the hard copy until the twenty ninth of may it's mailed off to the to the adjuster op they represent to us and as as represented to the commission that initial check was wrong they reissu a check of this amount is issued by the wrong person they get it done they get it to council within fifty two days of my receipt of the approved settlement contract the armor act which case talks about you know administrative issues seventy eight days finds that that wasn't done was not in a reasonable delay not only that it wasn't vexatious but it was a good reason and the cases make a clear distinction in one thousand k penalties that you need to show some type of an intent so there could be a wrongful intent with respect to this there is none in any of the in the record here or you don't even have a reasonable delay based upon the arm records case which was longer than this one ah the fact the counsel filed for penalty petition barely thirty days after receipt of the and then it's issued out her to me and on the twenty fifth of of june which is less than thirty days after we receive the settlement and then repeated short term additional may indicate a zeal to obtain the check but the number of times you request something doesn't make the time frame her point i mean recognizing that the agreement seems indicators of difference between requiring the employer to just simply pay the bills which i don't think is the case versus holding the claimant harmless let's begin raising this point just as well that you know ninety four the settlement contracts were signed and approved in may of two thousand and seven year thirteen years later but some of these bills the country specifically indicates that we will see the crime was defend indemnify them but this was a disputed case this case was in litigation at the commission for nine years before the settlement was finally reached so that there were significant disputes over who was responsible for these bills the very reason that the group carriers and we had the option if we chose to deny a defendant these bills were not work related or not related to this case to actually defend the lawsuit there's a mix between the contemplates that the employer would have the right to negotiate if you type of recovery these bills were paid this isn't a doctor calling the fisher saying my bill is outstanding this is a group carrier the church commits hate it that may or may not seek this further in november counsel in the case that there was a first a payment they were never sued they were never forced to defend anything and responder has in fact accommodated them again looking at the time frame with respect to this you have bills that were thirteen years litigation that went on for the thirteen years of the commission the fact that the resolution of these bills took from november november to either september or november a year later clearly is within the contemplation of what it would take to negotiate something of this magnitude respond that would submit that the commission decision is correct that there was no reasonable delay certainly no evidence presented indicating any  as stated in its brief the defendant agreed to assume the risk if the group carrier sought reimbursement for their payments than to pay that would be responsible and whole clean up and his wife harmless yet it took them another  months and months after they were notified that they asked what was in fact occurring to finally resolve the bills i said were several inconsistent season defendants misrepresentations are statements and misrepresents representations in the intentional decision not to add or timely i or its applications under solomon contract the defendant's delay in this case serve no purpose other than to de lay the payment of compensation which are court find that the decision of the circuit court concerning the decision of the eleanor workers compensation commission is reverse in reverse the commission for trial of penalties under sections one thousand kain attorneys fees under section sixteen thank