delineated that the claimant had his rights under section eight to remain open he would still be able to access care that was reasonable necessary and related but nothing in those settlement contracts the linea did what dollars to see such a peach hospital i would say then that yes that would be a specific award pursuant to the settlement crime track this out of my contract did not to let me anything other than that he had access under section eight  to the medical expenses that a result necessary and related and there's never been to terminations as to what those expenses are indeed commission in its decision made a statement that the claimant alleges that there are certain magical language they didn't award any bells and there's no basis in the record for that figure is what i'm saying one hundred thirty one thousand four hundred ninety three dollars and twenty seven cents doesn't match up to any of the bills in the record  i could not come up with that figure i was looking at what was underlying the bills that were actually offered into evidence by the claimant well i'm confused because of the initially i thought the the the argument being made was that the support in the record ok and sides only back there is that number that appears in their decision they talk about that number and that is how they come to calculating to the pam i have appreciate that the day the namur actually make an award if they never say hey employer you are now liable to pay one hundred thirty one thousand four hundred ninety three dollars and twenty seven cents in medical expenses they never made an award for medical expenses i mean which is say hey these are the expenses that are respond necessary and closely related because we also have an issue here too about the fee schedule because many of these expenses for after two thousand and six and this figure th season penalties i mean it says in the commission's order that the commission further finds that respondents failure to make payment of the additional amount of one thirty one or ninety three twenty seven was not good but i mean if not a finding that that was the amount what is that why it's certainly finding that they came up with me came up with a number that they felt that the respondent had not paid i can't tell you i i don't know exactly how they came to that number i mean to finding out what bills are doing always and i want to finding on whether or not the employer has acted didn't go toward manit and not paying these bills i mean that that was specifically requested in may seventeenth of you know two thousand and eleven and the commission did make that finding i mean all it did was talk about how all teas and fees and it comes up with a number that there's no basis for actually in the record that corresponds to these bills so i guess then if i'm supposed to  i've never been ordered to pay any sort of medical bills i mean i'm i just post to presume from this border this decision that i'm supposed to go out now and also write a check you know i've never been ordered to pay bills and there's clearly a contest the world penalties you know despite the fact that there is an ordering language in here it would seem that they would continue fine do expect say she is the reasonable for you not to pay those bills on the future vacated and it were manned it back to the commission for the commission to basically do the job which is to blue on the eight and petition in say these are the bills respondent that you were liable for because you hear that they said that when they told no they have it because there's no there is no basis in the record for if you actually do all of the math and you look at the last spreadsheet that's what into evidence by the claimant during the june eighth two thousand and eleven and hearing the total bills that were out there was one hundred thirty one thousand four hundred twenty six dollars and twenty two cents and the response then fired actually paid four thousand six hundred ninety five dollars and thirty cents leaving one hundred twenty six thousand seven hundred thirty dollars and ninety two cents i have these numbers are has to be an award there's never been an award relative to these a medical expenses is there a monetary amount it's indicated i guess you can call it a finding and their decision yes but that the commission has not because it wasn't just that i mean i wouldn't just call this a math error i mean there is more of a substantive if you to it that the commission have to actually have to rule on it and i don't know and that i wouldn't say that that provision would have been a couple for the commission to actually make a change to this decision because it was substantive and i guess the back and and response and also if i had did biased my client you know this is what they've ordered me to pay go pay this now and the claimant now  that was the purpose of the hearing is i agree with you that the the employer did make a good faith payment of over one hundred thirty five thousand dollars based upon what they could ascertain between the medical records and the bills that were presented to them and i acknowledged the commission to bet into credit but then they were still disputing other aspects of those bills which is where all of these hearings came from they were disputing liability and with your example for the t t c i don't believe i would pay the penalty if i  i mean i you know i can see them here the way the problem is whatever richard marosi said it might have said but the order actually reads the response is supposed to do that but it occurs to me that the obligation for calculating the date the commission injured this award assuming the bills have been paid i know i believe that once they read i believe that they can i think justice often is indicated they've already ruled on the penalties and once we come up with the actual underlying medical expenses award then if i don't promptly pay them yes certainly they came that's the whole point there's an award and if i don't pay them they can assess it can they now assess me again for penalties because i haven't in the meantime paid the medical expenses for which i don't think there's actually been an award i would saying i would argue no because i pursued the fact that there's a finding about one thirty one or ninety three twenty seven but that's not an award i just don't even know wh saying hey i want these medical expenses paid could my argument potentially raise that that was already taken care of we already were here on these hearings we had six of them and a warrant was entered by the commission how how should i and  and private health insurance they're not just and still by barely a little bit workers compensation is still the highest there in that business you know when you shave that the commission should do it they don't have the capability to do it they don't have the manpower they don't have the expertise it is a science what part of the body three what what vision school under global care it's a whole science they're in that i laid out several spreadsheets with the total amount of the bills which are several hundred thousand dollars the amount paid her health insurance per their reimbursement rates what they paid the higher than hire them health insurance reimbursement rates that's where that's fun the argument changing over here the first says that the providers are stuck once they accept payment from a whole lateral health insurance then they are stuck with that payment they can't pull back and then claim the difference between worker bill for a hundred thousand dollars in your company your health insurance company says we're not going to pay this she didn't put it in reimbursement rate of a mansion it's i don't know certainly be sure to take can't do it i disagree with justice hoffman with regard to the commission being able to do it they surely can't do it i have attempted to do it p i can represent to this court on several occasions and it is difficult it is it is more confusion than preparing a patch return and it takes a significant amount of  subject to discussion which is why insurance companies and providers of services often go back and forth with your mission there because this was included in global office  councils spoke about how the fee schedules was are less than what is paid by the health insurance carriers i don't know that because i don't know what the fee schedule actually is i  can actually go on the web site and that's how you actually do the analysis i believe is they actually set the parameters of what the fee schedule is new changes up on a yearly basis it's my understanding relative to councils argument that this was ongoing and a structure is from the employer and i'm just reading a record from the conduct that happened at the time and this is you know twenty years of treatment and i think actually it's more like probably more like ten because it doesn't appear that it had a whole lot of treatment in the ninety's ten years of treatment where the climate never made any sort of claim against the employer to pay for any of these benefits and tell you know tattle levin years am not the one who is responsible for that portion of this you know i i read the brief and i'm here for you now and so i just i can't answer your question i wouldn't but i don't want to tell you something i don't know i mean i don't know it's  it has to do that when you are awarding the penalty under section one thousand cases that it's a simple mathematical calculation of fifty percent on the word of mouth so i don't think you can call that  they didn't make an award and i guess that's that's where we were were saying the difference and that number is that finding that was there is not if you go through the records it's not actually supported by any of the records that are in there you can't come up with that figure it's not