consider the underlying circumstances and why it's important is this really fairly obvious from what ended up happening here are we sought to intervene on was not filed within the statute of limitations had been defended and defeated that case based on the statute of limitations that we were in september of two thousand and sixteen is an education on the merits counsel wants to state gation law suit removed to dismiss me objecting to that petition to intervene and to desist statute of limitations because that was the petition was filed more than two years after the occurrence in question and on the but the payout goes back to her so therefore doesn't she have an interest in that case she may have an interest in the case but could interest no longer exists once that dismissal based on the statute of limitations occurs she loses all right here and the damages that the employee in a separate geisha action is entitle to have defined by the worker's compensation act they can recover for the benefits paying for the benefits they'll have to pay in the future the case is holding for you can also or different causes of action as between her personal injury action and her petition to intervene into the segregation action there given it's never been raised and if you really want to be clear about about this the rascals personal injury action because lawsuit but what if you look at this rise because petition to intervene in the cyber geisha action she was seeking for personal injury damages against the same defendants who were defeated and defended her personal injury claim and that's where the race judicata mind stop if you look at the petition to intervene in her suggested amended complaint she was requesting the damages that had already been disposed out in their personal injury suit that was filed against pepper way right and the same was true here there was no timely filed personal injury damage claim well what about the thing that what about the case at hand for your father the subrogation action was timely filed and it also involved a claim for and her remedy is her legal malpractise action it is not a second bite at the apple against pepper pepper has defended it sounds and defeated these claims and i would again say the same parties who are involved in their personal injury if it's timely filed and we dispute that the petition to intervene was time we found in its own right even if you don't follow the race judicata basis which i think you do under sankey and same case sad that the mention of that there was an amended complaint filed and that is correct i did file a in our filed an amended complaint after the conclusion of depositions in the case that didn't have anything to do with amending the damages we're interest i don't see a case law to that effect or a truly cited by him i think that's just personal belief in fact section five b presumably disagrees with that the just make sure drafted that knowing f route that employers defend workers compensation cases and there are intitled to pursue those damages in circuit court separation action so that's what we have here there's simply no conflict of interest in fact we are he or so we're the attorneys fees and the costs the excess is paid over to morocco we don't represent mosh hill and i think this is analogous to the situation the reverse situation the more common case when the employee files they will represent the employer but they do have a duty to reimburse the employer's lien under section five b this is just simply the first scenario here so i don't believe there's any conflict here the last issue i want to address is the co sure i this is the nation but i believe these issues are moot because the case the underlying case has settled so there's nothing for moscow to intervene in and certainly nothing for her to control because that case of whether or not the rest of the car should be applied is still not being addressed agreed to this decision on the merits ok if there was a decision on the merits and in the two thousand and fifteen