morning they see that we have one case set and we allow fifteen minutes beside and we're not strict clock watchers but we don't want too long i will ask you to wrap it up case is called across the podium tell us your name and who you represent these call established that any party to a case may appeal a judgment that is adverse to its interest for you here counsel so we agree that you so  misconduct and that circuit court reversed that finding but we would ask the court affirmed the department the standard of review in these types of cases is while the state and the department's findings should not be clearly erroneous and here the record contains evidence demonstrating that claimant had violated he and in you know whether or not a claim and had committed misconduct depends upon whether or not they have violated or a reasonable rule and whether or not has caused harm to the employer and here the claimants and hear the evidence that support the board finding that the employer had a reasonable rules governing confidentiality and had a rule providing that the employees must have a release of information that employees then asked him to release of to the department's determination whether or not she is aware of the policy and whether or not she has violated maybe i'm not asking the question clearly being aware of the language of the powell c in understanding what the policy means they need one thing one employer employee and something else to another and may mean violating the policy and that and in this case there was evidence that should she have to understand what the policy is to not only but yes you would have to understand what a policy yet what you know what that she would have to be aware of what the policy is but in this case i mean there is evidence to demonstrate that she knew what the policy is there is evidence that the employer had b had met with her and to discuss the confidentiality policy and differently went over the policy with her there is evidence that she then came back and met with the employer again having a specific question with respect to the release information and the employer went over that again with her saying that she had been inquiring about whether or not the whether or not the release the information the employer had explained to her that the release of information had to include every individual that she's releasing the information to and not just the agency at large so there is evidence that she was aware of the policy to have permission in order to release this information and the way they would get permission to release the information is to have a release of information that contains who the information is being released to what your information is being released and then having it mean i don't know what each time she did say that she would that when she was with this particular one of the particular clients that when she was tight she had to contact a lot of aides and  in making a decision on facts in law based on the evidence and witnesses how is that not a quasi judicial agency and isn't ephod within the definition of someone who has to remain impartial detached have to change this you know without realizing that you know the court has declared it to be saw all right and i'm just concerned in this to under that theory  right there somehow unless you have the right to continue appealing we lose this money but what if the decision was wrong and the circuit court was in fact right in reverse and is there any kind of  review done of the a g s office recently when we're just not going to appeal this one because he you know this is this one was messed up and the judge was right and then there's somebody from the federal government not on your door and say no you have to appeal that one to you have to appeal everything until you've  on from the brawn decision effectively turns into words managerial responsibility as this point panel remarked in the original shaw decision there is no further gloss on that phrase there is and at least time to be hearing they gave us some information as to where the money comes from other than from the employers who use the product the case and when we issued the first decision we did not have information how does that  that move us to the to the broad side of the equation because the broad side of the equation included that very question how much money goes to mr braun how much was the entitle to when that's why there were adverse interveners coming too which is the other distinction upon his well there was actually two real parties in interest on that first sides of the aisle there was an appellant and appellee which were real parties in interest and the question before the pension board in roll on was did we calculate the amount right to get the right amount of balance is hot and unfortunately it doesn't go into that analysis the street course in brawn but that's just a fact of the function of a pension board and a fact that of the department at issue in this case you calculate the base you put it in a calculator in the figure the amount and the issue before the the issue created in this  department board review in this case is was there misconduct in connection with the work there is no discretionary function of the department implicated in this case the payment or nonpayment amount in this source of the funding as we're all implicated in iran are not addition was here this case the functions of the administrative agencies that issue iran is not of a common law trust if you pay close it's into that extent there is a similarity of functions but there is a lot more summer of two thousand letter maybe january two thousand and twelve it was on the cusp of a turnover year where her supervisor we back to files discovered in the summer of two thousand and eleven forgive me if the year isn't that she had no prior warning in october i hope a year about what she did prior to it can't be a fair warning giving her creating the necessary element of misconduct that it was intentional that's the operative fact that it can't be intentional unless she had prior warning that what she was doing was a violation of the employer's policy doing this to this forms there was no one in big us warning about the impropriety of creation getting signatures on these forms before she actually did it that wasn't their only concern about put in the timeline but referring to where i quote the record evidence that the meeting occurred in september of two thousand and eleven when miss washington took her aside and started looking through these files that occurred in the audit but the actual creation of these white forms with the signatures occurred previously she got fired for the fings she was only warned about after the fact that's not a warning but that's a pretext when  clear from the record but the actual discovery of the the licht that caused the firing post dates the creation of firing a post race the sometime prior and then when they discovered it later they use that to fire her so it was like double dipping since they want her about it they didn't really discovery until later but it wasn't created later it was created earlier  they were created sometime in the summer of two thousand and eleven and here i'm relying looking at our attacks on me of the evidence here so i'm relying on the chart which i put in clients files now because everything's not till then it's just of the nature of the case we're dealing with that we don't have paid for all of them but the evidence on these disclosures filing rachel plumbers file show that they were in september of two thousand a weapon is the first time there is a suggestion from any of her supervisors that you shouldn't be doing that so the so called warning is not a warning about your future contact it's about past she's not informed there's any transgression of her employer's policies until after it's already done it with ok to warn about past conduct but not to do it again in adequate evidence in the record to show whether they were created before or after all we know is that or is it do you have dates predate the so called warning before miss douglas can reasonably charge be think that the employer who had the burden of proof on this issue has borne the burden of proof and show that after the warning came she continued to transgress the policy now i think we're not just reading of course that they have the right to fire yes there is evidence before the before the board to have supported the finding that claim that was aware of the confidentiality public policy and she violated it they indicate firstly they had in september they had met with her to her supervisor had met with her to go over and explain the confidentiality policy to her and the supervisor testified that then a couple days later she came back to the super fire fight fires the glee about the release the information and whether or not she needed to you know put the individual person and and supervisor made it clear to her that she date that conversation where she did the same thing that she was counseled not to do there is a form in the record that is dated after she had met with the supervisor so that it was prepared afterwards but also these forms were all still maintained in the file after that time they were discovered in december but it doesn't make any difference for purposes of this discussion if they  conversation and she was counseled this is wrong don't do this they would presumably still be in the file but they would have been predated my question is just much more specific is there evidence in the record that shows that there were there was this conduct in terms of preparing unsigned forms that would use uncompleted forms that were signed the post dated the conversation that took place in september with her supervisor where she asked for clarity and was told this is a this is a clear policy you cannot do this is there such a thing in the record yes there is one of one of the forms the proper contains multiple forms one of the forms was dated for october so it was after the once you give her the warning if you give her the warning and she says ok now i understand i'm not going to do it again you can't go back and then fire her for the same thing that you gave her the one for if she didn't do it again so that's why i'm trying to find out that she do it again form in the record that has not told her that yes and that the forms were still contained within the files and when those were the forms that he was counseled about before so from my perspective that's that does not support your argument you're right you're argument has to be based on something that happened after she was told not to do so the stuff that was there before that's not what i'm asking about ok anything no i don't think so we would