cited in the court's order and also recognize that the issue of permanency in this worker's compensation matter remains on the side however given the seriousness of the case as well as fact that it was originally tried on all issues including nature and extent there were concerns about a possible waiver if an appeal had nap and file given that he employer employee relationship is a threshold issue here all other issues would fall if there was no imp a relationship so we've taken the position that with regard to the employer employee relationship there is a final order although it certainly does not suppose of all the case so are you saying we have  if the case goes back to the appeal were dismissed when a case goes back we would not be litigate the employer employee issue because the conditions already decided but isn't the issue the fact that it's being rem lisa catering truck over a period of approximately three a hundred days to trial he testified that he was required to purchase his food products from supreme it would be purchased coffee and donuts every single day however he produced in support of the three bills from three separate days showing what he purchased over this three hundred day period not one of those bills had coffee or donuts on the if we are standing alone i do not believe  rise to a reasonable inference that supports his decision with regard to the controlling requirement that he purchase all this food stop at the supreme catering commissary one percent of those bills of three hundred just does not support or support a finding that this is a clear preponderance of the evidence we're all aware that you should control with paramount here with regard to would employer employee relationship examination he did not get benefits or be patient pay and during the summer he drove an ice cream truck when he wasn't driving the supreme vehicle the commission also relied on the fact that he that mr d moreover the commission appears to have nor the fact that d s communicated in spanish with representatives of cream so you know because he would testify that he couldn't do this or you couldn't do that obviously if you understood what he couldn't couldn't do he had to understand it some way if he didn't speak english then you difference would be that he spoke spanish and indeed was instructed about some things in spanish so the commission's decision to the practice i mean wasn't there a great amount of control that the employer exercised over what he did let me just address a couple of those issues if i may with regard to the purchasing of the  if you look at response for a trial response exhibit number four it addresses the issue of sales tax on the foodstuffs but i think more significantly he talks about how sales tax will be assessed there's two categories one deals with tax on items bought from supreme catering only the other is tax on items bought from other sources the commission never addressed that use a clear inference that he had the option of tying down and other places besides cream so when we talk about control i think it goes to the period shoe along with to be there so in other words if he's if you want someone he's not going to show up at three o'clock to to sell watch he did to show up sometime during the middle of the day and so on so he had control over that i don't he of you know he didn't have to wear a uniform he didn't tell him how to dress and so on and so on i really recognize that there are issues of fact here ok my argument is that this is basically a house of cards starts to fall believe that i believe they have to be the issue was whether or not we have the employer employee relationship we had issue here to be decided before in many many areas that there were many instances of control at your size by the employer oh by supreme catering in this case they took a fellow who drove an ice cream truck off the street he had no prior experience in the catering business or operating a catering truck e and no prior customers they trained him how to do the job they trained him on a route as to what companies to go to with what times the supplied all the bison says they paid for weiss and says they gave him a truck it wasn't his truck the truck have a name a supreme catering out and he had to turn their truck and in the evening that he met this man clearly was not operating his own he was told that either we have to sign this agreement or you can't go to work and he wanted the job he was not the testimony show that he was not read the contents of the agreement because he didn't  allegedly gave him the agreement and read it to him in spanish later testified that he may have been on vacation on the day that he signed the agreement and he may not have had a chance to read it to him so  from supreme catering which is another element of control the the testimony of the of the supervisor mr abt the hauler was the at it with certain it certainly was for our benefit that he would buy the food from us significant money from the purchase of this food if he didn't buy the food if he wasn't it wasn't required to buy the food from the respondent then he would be responding would be collecting their expenses basically as w licensing fee and was a daily fee of ten dollars another fee of twenty four dollars there's about fifty dollars in daily fees which they would be collecting for a for him from expenses well they're not putting eighty catering trucks on the street just to collect their responses they're putting  y catering trucks on the street in order to make a profit in order to make money and the only way to end the main element of making money through these catering try was that they would be selling their food because it was testified to the at the worst understood dollars of food every day that were that were purchased so that's where they were making their money and to believe otherwise the at they weren't required to buy their food it would mean that they were running a business war as a  hobby as opposed to running a business for profit so i and the commission for user logic in order to make that inference based upon the evidence that was in front of them