record for his argument that the injury was was to the shoulder rather than to the arm i too will rest on my belief for our position that the commission's decision that the injury was to be armed is not against the manifest weight of the evidence would also  hundred ninety eight compensation for an arm injury mr dorsey does not dispute that he received compensation for thirty percent loss of use of his left arm and that receipt of compensation is what triggers the credit due under section eight treated as an injury to the arm under section eight nothing about that decision however changes the fact that mr dorsey received compensation under that settlement for the loss of use of his left arm and that's the key  settlement is still valid we don't know what the medical record said in that case and i don't know we that's not before the court in this case because of course this isn't a reopening of that case that case is closed and we don't have the medical records so i don't know what position the city might have taken t challenge the nature extent of the injury it was a settlement and there were no commission findings that there that it was a shoulder injury but it is the case that before will county parties did treat before the commission generally shoulder injuries as injuries to their position the city would have taken had that case going forward instead of a settled forward basis but case often evolves after settlements are entered into and that does not change the nature of the settlements that are entered into before the decision and as this court held in one of the cases we cite in our brief of the cameron versus bogus case  failure chain to dissipate the development of case law is no basis to invalidate a settlement even if the parties review a case differently i mean for over an hour does not change the fact that there was a settlement and underage compensation was actually received pursu arms left arm excuse me and under the plain language of the statute the city's entitled to a credit for that compensation and as my position also suggest that your this morning it makes no sense to simply treat those as awards under eighty two those are different awards with different calculations and different proves and this is not a case to void that agreement or to go back and revisit it and certainly that's not the solution under section eighty seventeen when these cases arise of in some cases and not in others when and in both situations you have the receipt of compensation for the loss of use of the arm he say what my cousin counsel is saying that in some of those cases you go back and you look at what the injury really was almost reopen the case which is what you would normally do when there had been a settlement and a subsequent change in the law that may have changed how the parties would approach that settlement but it doesn't change the essence of the settlement and here in this case receive the benefit of that bargain and it would be fundamentally unfair to you for the claimant to see the benefit of the bargain but not the city and the bell ability for credit is a factor in settlement and  that you determine whether or not where do you injury falls under and then you determine whether or not a credit applies because if you're just talking about off your compensation think about older injuries now moving forward after two thousand allowed on the recovery upon the classification of the body part now of the commission and the appellate court is it has changed the classification of the body part the koran needs to change with it that is the argument the credit lines to change with the