that this document was found late in discovery after everyone testified and as judge lawrence stated during the arguments they actually there are several where the employee was leased to tempting to sue in the our own situation attempting to sue the was actually an employee of the bar or company is there a single case that you would like us to focus on that would be a loaned her kind of employee situation where you would suggest that supports your appeal in terms of the written agreement information or just in turn in general i didn't really see a case that was you know the temporary agency there's a lot of temporary agency cases a temporary e s e that loans employees on a regular basis to another company and then the employee eat or alleged employee if you will get injured while working at the bar or employers company and then the question that particular employee sued the bar your lawyer saying they were not protected by the workers compensation act because they were not an employee of the bar employee and there was in the case i found that said you know so i guess he could you at least direct us t don't you think that every single temporary agency has a contract when me sent over their employees don't you think that they have a conference with the company that they're willing to ticket didn't the tickets pacifically indicate that tandem and that's like sterling here t m don't were they were not allowed to use these employees isn't really protected under these tax you know what i'm saying saying is that the borrowing employer is not qualifying under all circumstances we look to protect the employee restriction well i justice to the inquiry in the case or does not make that type of question like i stated the the inquiry through the case study as does the broader complaint qualify not what status is the employee ok to continue with that degree of control and it is just to tell the pharaoh had not been directed to go to the machine or you've been saying he is the bowing to that circumstance let's stress  worker's compensation that employee is absolutely right given that the purpose of the act it means kind of people that protect the employer from having to speculate or concern or whatever out awful enormous judgment i think the same time the policy is to protect those workers so that they are fully compensated for their injuries that occur on on the work  always look at two things we look at right to control and we look at whether the employee acquiesced i mean it's pretty well established we don't go outside the great control or the m p s and every single case here has that same degree so i do the equation there's multiple summary judgment cases and then we have the best which is the motions to dismiss under two six one might very similar procedure to summary judgment we are in the courts concluded there was no other reasonable  why isn't that employer still protected here the employer but yeah i'm sorry it was a zero point zero one scenario i gave you agree that that's an employer employee situation even though the employer for about half an hour ok and right right my position is that is that there was no real not enough consent for him to actually acquiesce to that type of here with specific suggestions that the the client it reads it will not require the service employees to perform the following  wrong that he was being directed and control at the time the sense of that there may be a situation where an employee loaned out is going to be doing something and three to this and yet the only thing that the client is going to