under the family that are out under the federal family medical leave act or the pennsylvania common law when the release itself identifies the issues to be resolved as those related to the august twelfth two thousand and fourteen work injury claim it is your position that in any way referenced the family medical leave act or the pennsylvania common law discussed were the worker's compensation claim he discusses the august twelfth two thousand and fourteen injury here and then applies that he understands he's not entitled to compensation on account of the injury or any additional future medical benefits discusses medical benefits and benefits available under the statute and again agrees that he is not entitled to compensation on account of the injury there is no discussion in the  and release and then it states that the parties enter into this compromise and release to amicably resolve these issues furthermore the release identifies the consideration should be aid to zuber for purposes of his workers compensation claim in section thirteen which is on page nine of ten the compromise and release it identifies how the benefit to super was calculated and benefit your hon it's a term of art a downer for those benefits which are available under the worker's compensation statute there is no consideration provided to zuber or anyone lisa claims outside the workers compensation statute when this release not include all claims that the clinic called have raised that is not included at any time at any point within this release pennsylvania law requires that there be separate consideration for each  of her release it is clear on the face of the star you meant that the consideration provided to super was on account of the injury there is no consideration for the loss of employment which is certs in his wrongful termination and family act claim and that's because it was not the intention of the parties to include the release of those claims this release was signed in equal of two thousand and fifteen at the time that the release was signed we were had already been terminated and and ask of could have easily included language that waive that release we would have the practice months workers compensations attorneys would be to create a separate release outside includes any complications that me a ride from the injury so that it later suffered further injury to his i would not be entitled to reopen his worker's compensation claim and seek damages related to that injury is not the crowd considering any and all types of employment claims that a claim it may raise which asserts they assert that there is a general release included within this compromise and release and there is no way in which to indicate workers compensation just different by workers compensation judge according to law i found the worker's compensation act the judge does not have the authority to determine if an injured worker understands we will significance you are yes i believe it would be and can get caught in the context of a compromising at least agreement a claim is what it's made when somebody gets the initiating documented an employer does not accept wanting my name is alex ross and i represent the defendant happily boss cause in this case your waters i want to direct your attention to the fact that in this particular situation the  sure thank you yes my argument in response that my position is that if that was the case there would be no need for paragraph nineteen the regulations promulgated by under the terms of a new code specifically say under  attach additional information to the form if circumstances so require and in fact the form which is stipulated by the state here includes a section that says state additional terms and provisions so i take it that your position would be release if it is the intent of the parties to do so you are i was not my question it was a great work around but my question is is the language as you've captured here is that the court looked at the totality of the circumstances and looked at the actual clear and specific language of the release as in the hobart case that was a lot upon by the district court in this case and said if the language is clear enough broad enough gentleness specific enough and includes all these claims and if that was the intent of the parties then in fact it should be in force and that's what we're relying on here is that the totality of the circumstance of this case mr zucker knew at aspects of the alleged work injury claim including but not limited to any other moneys of any current i mean if i was it with in hindsight if i was writing a release i would included this exact same language with the and biggest counsels trying to say that you have to sign another release you have to work belt and suspenders it's not if you release every claim not or on know of any kind and you give up any right any more money all this is all about but he wanted the money for this claim and yet kept in his pocket secretly another claim that he was about to spring on the defendant that the fed had no way of knowing they're asking us to put in claims here that we had no way of knowing that were even in existence  present and future benefits so if that's so then a claim that he learned of the day efter he signed this according to you would fall within the end of the lease if he if you learned about some a payment that he subsequently receives that's that's his business it has nothing to do with with what we were it required to do we would be the same as if let's say that at the time of our sinus release boston secretly knew was ten thousand dollars for a long that that wasn't mentioned here and then the day after this osgar says well we're not going to pay you the money under this release or because you've released all claims we release all claims and we had the secret claim that you should have known intramural litigation but it isn't in our response ready read everything within this paragraph and in the entire document the language you draw our attention to all aspects of the eight twelve alleged word injury clean and it's disgusting the physical consequences the events of august well and that all that's being released here rather then other things like he got fired anything he was retaliat if we read this in congress how do you get around the fact that there's language in this particular paragraph that seems to draw attention back to the fact we're talking about the work and the physical injury act that and bring no further claims arising from back if i moneys of any kind including but not limited to and it goes on to benefits costs attorney's fees in connection with the eight twelve two thousand and fourteen work injury this complaint that we're hear about today is in connection with there is no doubt about it the only reason marine corps taste because in connection with that injury mr zucker claims that he was improperly or illegally fired it is in connection with those claims that arise from workers well except for the other language in it that says any and all money is a any kind and this is the intent of the parties to seek a form final resolution of all aspects the intent of this was to elise the employer the unintended consequence of going the other way in this case will be for this incentivized these type of releases these releases are designed for questionable workers comp cases where there is a very case in pennsylvania that says once you sign a general lease of this nature you have released all such claims if this was a later accruing playing with the day after you sign this release mr zucker was anabolic off store and tripped and fell and broke his arm he would have a claim no question about it but he gave up all claims that were in existence not or are now and he knew that he said so in his transcript hearing his lawyer question him and said you realize that even if tomorrow something happens to you bad you can't go back and sue basco us and he said yes i understand all that arise why should we view this release in a way more narrow with pretty specific regard to that language then you suggest then he suggests why should  factual overlap as children fact that the injury caused his need for job protected week which then led to his take his taking a time out that should have been protected in the family medical leave act the fact that there is some battle over does not mean the  that they assume that appellant has lost some working ability and that's how they came up with the amount that's roughly eight thousand dollars which is the amount that zucker was provided as a result of the screen consideration for release of claim