thirteen it's also in my opening brief on page four a little easier to read that's the section that's really in dispute i think more than any other his employment which to me is the same as a contract you bring a breach of contract claim now we did not because the contract said we could bring this claim at any time it wants what we did and that's the remedy is to get his maritime benefits so we plain english is that you can decide you want you know restricted is when you opt out but it doesn't say that you're governed by what restrictions there might be i don't mean to read it your way would be to say i'm automatically entitled place he could opt out as long as he was getting his workers comp benefits just which he was he could argue out at any time he was getting those benefits it's true he couldn't do it thirty years from now if he was still getting benefits well that well i think the word  your construction you know i think i'd rather go on and on and that he could do that but i think that's what that part of that paragraph says exactly so really i think you're reading you're saying seaman something about what happens to him when he's injured well i think they tell him that well first of all i don't think they could ever get away from their maritime benefits that problem and that's what they were trying to do here was just paint workers compensation but setting that aside if they tell him they were going to pay you workers comp which they do with this paragraph but if you have if you just like art that is that we will pay your maritime benefits i think they have to do that and that's not between two equals the same and has a right to say well that's what you told me i can believe that and especially in a case i think worker's comp is this i think if i'm getting worker's comp i don't think very many people in america would understand that they could also think that another benefit we all have this view if you get worker's comp that's your action against your employer sense before that they took on the obligation to courtney his maritime benefits and his workers compensation and he said something and if it turns out that you're not covered under federal benefits that you don't meet the requirements if they don't promise that you'll get  puts on the employee you make that decision you may opt out have a little more difficulty with your argument that somehow the company has volunteered to figure out what's going to be best for the employee and we're going to take care of everything why i think if it comes from the fact that work benefits to work them out so that he died adequate benefits not the least benefits not just workers compensation but all of coronated put them together in the fight those benefits like we're going to choose one over the other for you sure you understand why there is a provision like the one we're dealing with today in terms of employment it's not a part of the agreement it's not intended to be a part of the employment agreement that's why there's a different document it's titled employment agreement it is meant to tell somebody something a few years ago there was a big lawsuit in seattle just really presided over and to the lawyers from the dick most law firm represented a class by the time we were done fashioning a caption they were suing most of the major largest employers of seafood processors in seattle the allegation was there's an industry wide conspiracy pushing these people to come from an effort to avoid there are rights under federal maritime law  course there was a three year statute of limitations so as to every major city for a crossing processing company in seattle they were permitted to go through every single claim for a three year period it was told on acce unsuccessful from our point of view i'm it's not before you so i'm not going to discuss the numbers but one of the things that came out of that was how do we deal with this so this provision came out in the terms of employment what it says i think point blank  if you get injured on the job we want you to know you may have rights over here you may have rights over here we want you to know that you tell us what you want to do it goes beyond that just one step and it makes one other thing very clear because there problem it's not an option if you're icicle seafoods and you have an injured worker a processor of seafood on your boat you will file that claim with the last workers comp board and if you don't you're in violation of  the alaska contract and you will pay penalties so what do you do when you have an injured worker processing stupid on your both and they don't tell you what they want to do obviously you've got to comply with alaska state law and they do if subsequent to that the employee comes back and says i've got these federal remedies i'd like to go that way they file a notice of controversial with the alaska state workers compensation board says this person has told us they don't want to have their medical speed for under the compact they want their medical state under the doctrine of cure and the federal maritime law and they don't want temporary total disability they want mates and the workers comp board not too surprisingly takes the position as long as they're getting what they're entitled to we don't care what you call it and so you transfer those benefits well you know very nice to do so kind of and tell them those things they're entitled to advance a claim which nobody tells employer sits down with an unrepresented seaman and says you're now about to give up every right you have in exchange for this amount of money why doesn't apply when an employer says to him look we're going to take care of all of your problems and handling of claims fully well i hope no one is going to construe this  coordinate the mollen they don't have to worry about anything as long as they don't realize they have a johnson claim i don't know how you construe the paragraph that's at issue to indicate that any semen potential semen or a last but you're you're telling them that you're going to take care of their problems and handle of claims both state and federal and coordinate them for them your honor if you construe the paragraph to say all that and we're in trouble we construe the paragraph to say you have benefits here and there you may want to look into it and tell us what you want to do i don't think it says we're going to take care of all your problems for you you know many i suspect so what the court said is merely keeping someone in the dark is not the same as the permanently misleading them i don't want anybody to think anybody was kept in the dark i think icicle seafish did a lot more than that they're the people who set in writing way here that well that was the intention that's why i give you this history of the class action lawsuit and so forth it's discord a nation of how are we going to take care of their medical benefits how are we going to take care of their maintenance versus time lost it's an effort to resolve once and for all the allegations that the employers are trying to push people in one direction it's an effort to say point blank employee here's two things you should keep in mind you may be here you may be here be advi do you have any comment on that i am not familiar with like your honor not as i stand here maybe i've read it forgotten but i sounds like it is one in a long line of cases that says before you ask a seaman in th context of a settlement to relinquish any rights you have to tell him what those rights are very very briefly me ask you one other subject and i want to run interrupt this but i i want you back to the at any time phrase from the terms of employment and plaintiff's argument that in effect that holds the statute of limitations open and i think very often they ought to they get bigger checks if we why not then when you've decided the time loss is over you can go out and seek your federal remedies it's intended to tell people there's no limit here and you don't have to choose i think some of the argument in the briefing some of the argument you heard today is intended to convey to you that this employer is trying to tell people you've got to make a choice there's a fork in the road you go down this one you don't get to go down this one it's not as you understand it means that particular aspect of the worker's comp or maintenance impurity station can be made at any point in time let me try to be more specific i think there is a statute of limitations in the case law regarding a maintenance claim you can't make you can't file a suit for purposes of gaining measurements beyond three years but if we're talking about a seaman who's a seafood processor then under the alaska laws that really is no detriment to them because they're going to get the same thing excuse me under the compensation act and if you're representing a seaman who's been who's not made or making this claim within that three year statute of limitations you turn to the commensurate right the parallel right maybe even greater right in dollar terms under the alaska compact so there is a statute of limitations there is a time limit for makin circumstances yeah the outcome can depend the outcome can vary depending upon a number of factors but you asked me for one little part of that so the answer would be if someone is injured the first day of their contract that part of their federal maritime benefit package maintenance cure would be honored w but they wouldn't really have to do this but again i don't i wouldn't want you to think a person has to make a choice here the case is out of our district courts and the ninth circuit at least the two that deal mostly with maritime issues alaska and the western district of washington the district according to the case this federal and in alaska the alaska supreme court that's absolutely correct so you don't need to opt out of alaska benefits to do that no no the limitation would only have to do with of sounds like general damages the contract asked a doctor to look to the a m a guidelines for the assessment of permanent impairment apply a formula to come up with a number and you get a percentage of the maximum amount allowed under contract so if you have a five percent whole person impairment you're entitle to a payment of the hundred fifty dollars for example if you have that state right that doesn't have a parallel again in alaska we're only going to convert this little group of fish processors that happens after these cases that say you can't have that set up and i don't think you have to do this stuff and i there is the case that hasn't come up well you know i think what we're talking about here i think this whole paragraph this whole thing was just to trip the seamen in to keep taking workers compensation and not looking further and i think to allow that to happen is outrageous