comply with the terms of a settlement agreement we then determined that it will joshi with the commission's assessment of penalties and fees the commission has jurisdiction to construe the terms of the settlement agreement that was also affirmed in the way all the case if they're let inflated clearly say that to be able to assess the penalties and the commission has the jurisdiction to interpret the terms of the settlement agreement entered into between the parties struck about those holdings and don't tell us about the is supposed to be the interpreter of contract language in contract law you do see the difference maybe i went too far there but i would like to get to the actual case at hand because i think the story is incredibly interesting and there's a lot of pressures going on in  that were happening but mysteriously magin sitting in your office and you get these mysterious contracts for two thousand and seven which are for less than what had been discussed and you're thinking maybe i should question is is the commission failed the face of the character or indicates a medical bills were paid there's a section that says list all unpaid bills in the space below that was left empty by the draft  into the affirmative obligation on the part of one of the parties to actually do something to say roll bills have been paid in their turn it into a contractual obligation that this party has now not being considered at least that seems to be what's going on in this case the head case specifically was designed differently and you can take a look specifically one of the things i want to point out is that the respondents said that they had no issues in their disputes with those medical bills and then the court really specifically looked at that and said you know what you guys are arguing about additional medical bills that came up after the contracts were signed please but you say you don't have to speak with the language on the back of contracts which i think is the meat of what everyone in the industry looks at and very detailed speech language the bills in the treatment wasn't even done until august of two thousand and seven these contracts were grafted in july two thousand and seven then presented in two thousand and eleven well that's all well and good but you  agreement is because of the authority to determine penalties and fees if there was simply a motion to enforce would it be the same unless there was a claim for penalties and fees the argument would be stronger if there was no claim for penalties  does not say if the worker's compensation commission has the right to force the agreement it only says it here is the right to interpret so if you interpret in agreement but you cannot business the practice or the commission not necessarily the what we can discern looking strictly of the contract you're saying this is how you view this contract this is how we all interpret this contract this is how it happens  we actually never saw those contracts again those congress were presented to us when they after they were approved and then the choice we had was to look those contracts you know the question really was while a council on the other side having