thousand and ten in an order issued february twenty fourth two thousand and eleven the commission relied on the power automotive case and said responded is liable for the bill that's causally related her surgery was positively to the national injury but the bills were paid two hundred twenty six thousand dollars of medical bills were paid by a third party in the amount of thirty eight thousand five hundred eleven dollars that is the amount that the respondent is liable for as it relates to this treatment the phishers attorney review that quarter of a commission it went up to the circuit court the circuit court and well county reversed and remanded as i said earlier for consideration of the act of applicability of the fee schedule to us charges and also consideration of t t v and out circuit court or when we reviewed the august two thousand and thirteen order reopen the prior two thousand women m r case and will county and when she consolidated when the judge consolidated the two thousand and thirteen m r case with the of two thousand and eleven case she reopened that case boy and the law is very clear the commission's decision a commission's decision becomes conclusive as to matters addressed there in it not subject to attack after the timeframe runs correct that's the general rule generally correct so now you're saying there's some weird exception that happened here well there is there's a couple exceptions i believe because the she reopened the two thousand and one a case she brings those issues back in to the present case by consolidating and saying that we did atmos leave it to follow the remained the order and so nobody does anything about it right well that i suppose is correct but then the then a penalty petition followed and we and we went before the commission on that and the well i think that the case cross says that a circuit course repaint jurisdiction of agency decisions after they're remanded so she had jurisdiction after the remained when we finally went back up to the circuit court respondent is liable for the schedule amount of the medical charges despite the fact that they were already paid at the time of the eighty hearing the evidence was submitted as to what the third party paid and tore automotive clearly says that's the burden of the respond to pay what it was provided or i'm sorry what was paid and accepted by the providers the petition burden under section eight is a levy aided by the responding paying that amount and any award in excess of the amount except by providers would result in an exorbitant windfall in this case there's been no evidence that any of the providers have sought any additional money or additional payment of medical charges in the record and i i believe that also the argument that for some hollow colorado more doesn't apply in this case because the surgery took place after the imposition of the feats kegel is misplaced it's pretty square with colorado motive in that we had an accident that took place before the fee schedule treatment both before and after the few scheduled and payment of those charges by a third party in the tower court clearly held that the collateral source rule was not applicable in workers compensation cases based on the fact that there is no real tort r to take advantage of the contract the relationship between the payer and the health care provider and so i think colorado more of that applied which i believe this court should reach that issue because that's the crux of the whole matter and finds what's reasonable necessary and the amount of the charges that's a distinct issue from the collateral source rule that really should have been addressed by the circuit court here should have been addressed by the commission they don't see it that way that what that's what the issue is that if the if this court doesn't decide that issue or doesn't reach that issue we're still at the same position we're at in two thousand and twelve where we had was a commission order that  station if there is no jurisdiction well if there is no jurisdiction we can't answer the question he said to his tone i said understand you don't want to render advisory opinion we don't know but there's tons of cases whose duty is it to and the commission i suppose can interpret its original order term how much is owed but the other question is you only get back there on a petition for penalties under nineteen a zero zero or fees  sixteen and i suppose then you give the question is was it really vexatious where there is a legitimate dispute as to how much money you know i don't know here's the commission's job to