some reason it's not working so i've got my hearing aids in my pocket and i don't know whether or not that will do any good and then it will let me just say this i read a book reviewed that is thank you ok but what i would say is that i have reviewed everything and there really is nothing that i would like to have at this point after going petition was released to go back to work by a doctor he saw the doctor about a year or so after the incident for the last time the doctor released him with certain restrictions and he did not see the doctor again i'm told now that he injured himself the second time all of the data information and all of those facts have been admitted by the respondent at but what about a different inferences can be drawn from the evidence well the the issue and the particular issue in the case is is the petitioner entitled to be  receiver and awarded for the first incident which was the same part of the body as the injury in the second incident and i don't think there are any inf and inferences that would change their position it's a question of law as to whether or not after having an injury in the first the same part of the body first restriction the worry will brace on the leg that was injured having short after children was done so i don't think there are any inferences from those facts that can be drawn that would change the issue in that case the issue is whether or general electric case where the general ledger case was a situation where the petitioner had carpal tunnel a carpal tunnel injury and ten years prior to the second carpal tunnel responded shouldn't the respondent be entitle to get credit for the entry in the first case we're where the petition was awarded money in the first case and the supreme court in the general electric case said number one that was ten years ago and whatever a word there was no evidence apparently introduced and th benefit which is what this case call for let me give an example counsel warred with the general electric case is a pretty bones matter we argue it is not for these very reasons number one in general electric here to access the same body part but the first adjudicated before the the second case there was a specific finding the first case that's not the case here both this case were tried the same time as the first thing secondly this particular incident so you're saying you would be able to be compensated under age you for that minus x x that's correct because he was probably compensated at the time of trial regarding his condition that is he had a guy change i just want to continue what i had said about the general electric case and in the very last paragraph of that particular case were as i said where they allowed both the award for eight easy originally and eighty one the stand the defendant in that case for the respondent was trying to get credit for the original award and the supreme court said while you have no evidence that was producer we can speculate but the court went on to say moreover section eighty seventeen does not provide for any credit for that situation where you enter the same part of the body and subsequently get an a do you want to ward the very last paragraph specifically says that eighty one is not subject to any prior award so i think that's important i think with the the act as you may have act in the courts have said that over and over again that if anybody is to pay for the injuries that are suffer by the employee it should be the employer and not the general public and this is a situation where he did have an injury there's no question as to what the results of that injury were but he had it reach maximum medical improvement at the time that he went back to work the doctor said that he had a permanent injury problem and restrictions again i ask the court to look at this as a question of the law and i don't think that it would be fair i think would be unjust not t