statutory defense that was brought in by the alaska legislature in two thousand and four it has been the subject of four different opinions but the last the supreme court in three of those cases judge christian was on the bench and she actually wrote one of those decisions in every one of those cases the court cocked about the trade off that the alaska legislature made in two thousand and four and that tradeoff was this that basically said we're going to expand exclusive liability to cover those that are in this chain through a project manager but in return we are going to require that they step to the plate and be responsible for providing workers compensation benefits and then this case there is no question but that the u s postal service does not provide those benefits certain so there's got to be a contract in order for there to be a contract or contractor and the other point that i would simply make if we're looking at the statutes it's really important that we look at it as twenty three thirty zero five five which is entitled exclusiveness of liability and in the very last sentence of that statue it reads quote in this section employer includes in addition to the meeting given  lavarch what's wrong with that reasoning your honor is the barge and none of the other cases cited stand for the proposition that a federal judge in making that analogy should create facts joins us so it is your problem just really trying to hone in on your problem is the problem that she had said look it was fine to analogize to a private carrier but that he had in doing so he had to hypothesize about what the terms of the contract would have been well and a private your person runs a red light there's liability under state law rights and here the thing that's missing no matter how we caught it is that the postal service does not come within the definition of an employer because they are not responsible for financially responsible for providing the benefit and i don't think you can predict that well the so let me ask you that so then is the appropriate analogy this gets to my question contract that didn't provide worker's comp so for example if it acts and hired and it said within the terms of that contract by the way we're engaging you to be our basically our son tractor to deliver our mail for us but but we're not going to right right and we're going to imply that you're still in the chain of command so to speak so what about that i think that the answer to that question your honor is if we look at the seventy other businesses approximately that  but in this circumstance in many way it seems much easier it's and anderson because this is a courier service that's really tangentially related to the mission of the business this is this is the air carrier delivering mail for the poster doesn't involve the generic delivery of services which is what we have here in other words we go back intraday out there was only one project manager only one of the control room where that's not the situation here the situation here is air or the other carrier and they wouldn't have that liability i don't believe under the statute of being responsible for the workers compensation if a plane were to go down your similar language to the alaska statute we couldn't find it we couldn't find anything close anywhere what we could find is this that in every single case where a court has applied that reasoning they look carefully at what the law is and california to the facts as they exist in that case but what about also and surely what we've said like circumstances don't need to be identical circumstances like circumstances do not restrict the courts into crea the same so to a private employer in other words let's look at the same person running the red light which is really what this is about let's look at the person who is not responsible for providing workers compensation benefits under state law would not receive the benefit of the statute we know that the state of alaska the legislature when it created this statute did not ever intend to have this situation arise we know it's  unfair and it's unfair because they get the benefit of a statute that they don't fulfill the burden and it's unfair for another reason and if you look at this case what happens in this case is that the door doesn't swing both ways if we look at this case and said ok this was a lawsuit by mr marin easy for workers compensation coverage you can few nice states postal service because his so we're in a situation where the postal service wants something that's unfair they want the benefit of the state statute but they don't want to comply with the birds and the other problem with with what they want is they want  court to decide this case based on facts that don't exist as opposed to the facts that do exist if so i say that what the court should do is it should apply alaska law legislature ever intended this to apply for the generic delivery of services another example of what you're saying your honor is you know we all fight was karolides all the time you probably did too on the way up here they stuck it in alaska airlines isn't your reasonable at analogy genius it is not a reasonable analogy when the you know what the true facts are we know what the truth i start here the true facts are that the federal government does not that's a state law exclusive live with and if they simply do not live here if we apply those facts to any sort of a private person that's where the analogy should come here they don't need a prerequisite certain more with the first purpose and one of those who hire contractors to ensure that the contractors and subcontractors had workers compensation package or be liable themselves on hold so that's the trade off that i'm talking about your if if this court doesn't reverse this case and if there is it is it is a question on issues that judge morgan grace for example is this is a contract with certain work if we do that sort of analogy what is a contract for a certain work i believe that that question should be answered by the last the supreme court yes thank you thank you if the contractor which in this case was pro mac had not purchased workman's compensation insurance then there would have been a question of liability whether with the postal service or f understood the project owners would likely not need to purchase additional workman's compensation insurance and the reason for that is that he is only comes into play i this were fed ex where you p s the plaintiff would be able to bring this suit those are the obvious analogies to the postal service in this situation and it's clear that you can't bring the lawsuit against  fedex and it really does follow that you can't bring a lawsuit against the postal service we think that's what the district court sort of pretty concisely naturally sat in for that reason which that the proper thing to do is to district court correctly said no the real analogy here is to the postal service or u p s or fed it says in the business of delivering packages if anybody if this is the usual course of business for anybody it's set of regulations that established the responsibilities under pain and trades those are in the excerpts of record starting in seventy three and for each specific shipment there is an agreement between the purposes is the district court said a contract but in any event the real question would be whether the analogous person in similar circumstances would in here we have some of you know some cases it is hard to form you know the right because the question here is whether the posters here the postal service is a project owner i mean and this gets and the and this is work that would otherwise be done by a postal service to live or we person was to come in bring in the package it's not worth at the door there's a familiarity with what goes on you come in and the question is if i hire you or the postal service hires company that furnishes workman's compensation and it's an injury that was done within the scope of that employment and we know that because he received were once compensation insurance and therefore those is there a second cause of action against the