you're really not talking here about whether the decision of the a l j and the v r v are supported by financial or by substantial evidence as to the finding itself that is  promulgating of an actual regulation than by litigation position but in any event maybe the director could do it the board cannot let me ask you a question the biggest problem i think you have is with our case general construction company versus castro which is for all one pad thirty nine sixty three two thousand and five and i know they can all right well the way you looked if you looked like well i don't know what you're talking about i am con it has to do with this case would certainly not go ahead well frankly what happened in that particular case is that we had a similar situation where the v r v had made some decisions they've made their decision about something that ha distinction the statute is perhaps some other unusual in this respect but it is just like for example the occupational safety and health act in which the policy making a pharmacy is given to the secretary of labor ok so i underestimated what i've said and had medical problems as a result there thank you i think all very less go that far you're saying why i fully disciplined but has medical problems because he was rightfully disciplined no respect for what the v r e be did well i would have first would have to respond to the benefits review board it not base this rule in any way shape or form not one sentence not one word on construction of has put together and one of those good reasons is to give make sure the people are more of a ploy than that they're paid to when they're having these problems  and so what you really suggesting is that the decision that we make here would if we go with you we're really saying to every person who's out there in this particular area is along sure act you better firearm or you're going to have a problem isn't that what we're doing if we get a job you are your particular argument because if we don't adopt that argument then if they don't fire which is not one of the things that longshoreman act was really trying to produce if they don't fire him they're going to have to pay for any medical problem that they have about giving them recompense not bad stuff that they shouldn't have done but how worthy good situation where they say you didn't do it right and you should've done it right and because you didn't do it right and you should've done it right and we're going to let it continue we're going to give you a last job then you're going to have to pay if if i go to the doctor over that reprimand but if you say oh no we they continue to have and one of the reasons we have workman's comp is still that we don't have the employer firing the employee on every one of these situations and continuing to have lawsuits against by balance of the court points to marcy needs and the deal the basic underlying deal of the court points to is imposed having on the employer liability without respect to false in title to judicial respect what does that mean it means that when the board's interpretation is reasonable and the flaps the policies behind the  injured who are not able to work in her totally disabled have to pay close disability if they could show alternate employment consistent with the employee's age occasion restrictions then the employer only  on accidental injury and making this verbatim partly so partly so your honor and that would be based on prior interpretations but that has nothing to do with marino they didn't talk i mean interpret ing that language as a rising naturally out of such an ornament in that particular situation it was a decision where they reduced force and one could suggest that that does varieties naturally out of the employment on reduced force and that's where i thought you know when but to suggest that it would seem a little difficult to get there unless you have accidental injury well i mean my worry is that i have to interpret some statutes here or i have to marino further applies to legitimate employer personnel actions prior to terminations and there are a number of policies under the long strike and other congressional courts and the board have noted in interpreting the law for it's not valid to look at interpretation of the national labor relations act and under national labor relations ac purposes of the national labor relations act slowly without regard to other valid congressional policies in this case we not only have the congressional policy in the most cracking purging pointed but there are other valid in our court based on those kind of arguments we'd make them based on the illegally illegal leads that send the statutes as well as what the supreme court has told us to do not on some i d a that we're they have a case like this where practices and matters are conditions of employment for other purposes pulling out and the federal labor relations act a third station seventy one of the three eighty four thank you very much