you should have done if you didn't do it the right way melfi says suggester but there are some outrageous or will or one aspect to it but all those don't necessarily establish intent results in injury did you claim you were in to your clients entitle to damages proximately cost and when you see how courageous you really seem to be talking about conduct that only indirectly affected your client it wasn't the bank or the banks officers or the security guard that wasn't there that he could climb on how do you get around the intentional aspects of do we know from this record that there were no safety issues implemented in the nation no minimum security requests my plane o since that time she received over forty seven thousand dollars in medical payments and sixteen over sixteen thousand lost wages her attorney still actively negotiating to resolve this pending worker's compensation claim the  benefits which is your sole exclusive brevity and she does it with the assistance of her own counsel and she's been benefiting she continues to benefit from it but also her muscles invited us to expand the exceptions to exclusively process here how can you extend it and say we will really say that if the employer specifically intended this to happen for the criminal acts of a third party who came into office but you can't show that specific intent even with you even  but what about the fact that she brings to the banks attention that certain things need to be done number one if we're going to assume there was a case which i don't know that truly was  to pay phones they were requesting that there be two main teams and very similar to this case they were asking he said we should have been no security guard that does not rise to the level of the specific intent or intentional act it just doesn't and he might be able to make that argument but i don't see a case law that requires it i still don't understand if if he has not crossed that first hurdle to the fact that he's already filed for an application for a worker's compensation claim and has been compensated for it now or hope as they talked about the fact that the the state the wife started receiving payments three days after and the employer came out and started issue now with our first you know we're questioning this one she was represented by counsel once you start receiving payments yes once you start receiving payments no other examples because they don't want the employers to shield themselves from their liability but if if you're concerned about the statute running you can file  fact they play the can show the specific intent to injure they can still proceed toward defeating the whole purpose of the workers compensation act by then letting them say ok well i'm going to take a swing at this and then if i can do it i'll give all the money back but eventually sure i think there is a discuss here  receive the workers compensation benefits and start receiving them then i just i think for a gallon collier say you can no longer then go and cite intentional acts upon the employer specific intent and cannot prove specific intent upon the bank just like in burma cough and therefore the exclusive remedy applies on that as well so it's a two fold aro