program categorized the owners debbie to wages as fixed as a fixed expense when calculating compensation for the employer's business economic loss quite here neither essential element is present because miss  employer or she special manufacturing made the decision to settle all of its claims through the company until neutral settlement program in two thousand and sixteen is be peak self acknowledges in its brief the new chose the not utilize the bell framework or the various compensation formulas there and when resolving machines specially corning stead the neutrals employed their own competence on proprietary methodology in formulating us and settlement offer strange strange beyond the settlement proceed if it is not worthy of credence what what is your argument in all of this seems to me has to have some that the litigation procedure proceeding has under the solomon agreement itself all arise out of that framework well i don't i don't see why we treat one differently from they are the  actually in some cases that's not far from the truth there were certain authors that were just there was no rhyme or reason on why when they get back if that were true then why would the other party have me exact i mean if it was so lacking in and you found it for as much as you thought you could possibly receive under the settlement agreement and that would have included take showers with much where i would look at it just as a practical not understand your barbie have reversed as to it is abused denied discretionary view of it's just an outlier one factor on kate's what's the authority that we would reverse his discretion it sounds tough but you see my point summary i guess i'm still struggling arthur are all low is fairly developed as to when we will reverse judge barbie for not exercising discretionary review and it seems like it's pretty specific and it's got to be something contradict it the settlement agreement or something where we have a significant division of appellate panel but here we've got just a real oddity but like a as i mentioned you know i believe this is the first and i believe there's others that will come out because b p will no doubt continue to raise that in some cases that somehow if your knowledge they've never worn his life from the right to my knowledge as i said yes but at the  this case is instead of making the person go all the way through the end of the c s as the process they settled the claim really threw the neutrals and then they released their b l and the question is is that differen which isn't even related at all we said the burden is on them to show that there's an abuse of discretion here and they certainly haven't done it you know then subsequently we get these other ones that are coming down the line i guess is if he does come up going to say the neutral process isn't in the shadows of anything it's a take it or leave it quick money fix it doesn't have any control over our conversation that's seems to me what every single appeal panel is saying what with respect from the settlement agreement that the parties are opting out of to get a facile louche they can opt out of the prime working to be i'll agree with mark my question is do you want your authority for the fact that the new tools or bound in whatever number they come up with all business owners into the b l o framework and why is that because if they are in the b l framework their family be compensated for all of their losses if you own a business you can pay yourself i think if we do reach the merits and i'm not sure i'm convinced we should i'm not convinced that the third inventor isn't allowed to both parties in other words beyond plain filed both people feel very apprehensive about how long it's going to take they just want a short cut settle it in a complete lack box of confidentiality and a number comes up and it's a big compromise i don't understand why we have to assume that number is controlled by the frame that's the merits difficulty that i think you're hearing both questions so i  jews are not where you are not bound by any of that in fact in what they say it's common sense it will freeze up the whole system otherwise and adam smith says they must be now no i don't see that mockingly i suppose some of those arguments have some traction what's of the claims that you had presented were before with a neutral we saw i mean he settled the claim that you would have litigated and the and that included the fixed income of the office owner who also had a cla