in this case that judge snyder decided that session one fifty five was not available and he decided that there was no claim  there's no special in fifty five claim and there's no claim of an implied right of bashan under the insurance policy because he finds that section eight point two d d gives a private right of action to resolve it to the medical provider policy which is in fact that ash in the record in this case yes the provisions that may be mutual would be primarily liable at the peak it that the employer should not make or makes terms of the worker's compensation policy and specifically when the insurance policy says we will pay the obligations the right to the workers compensation lot more than those obligations ar two thousand and ten it may have been true in two thousand and four when miers was decided and so  for the propositions that the metaphor values are incidental and not central and that's where i started and i read that argument an hour ago but i'd like to just repeat briefly central not incidental three case decided by the second district three years after fischer and in that case the second district found that you would imply a private right of action under the  the significance of the public policy is that which drives the whether or not to recognize or have a right a bad show that the public policy may not be strong for for employees to report portions conduct but the public incidental to the worker's compensation system for the oklahoma  the other party it wasn't dismissed against down south as far is councils arguments regarding the private right of action i think on this one the party deserve a case that we're looking at and then also my disperses for now compensation commission decision and now when you meet that case i'm going to discuss the penalties in the attorney's fees that are available under the act and that's part of what i was talking about on prior to the other  case in the five zero cases that there are  limitations were provisions and plays through and how did it handle these situations if there are issues regarding payment and as i said previously so obviously when an attorney can get in turn the fees for something they're going to be bringing it out because they want to try to get those attorneys fees if they've got a valid position for it  valid arguments and they can go to the commission and get more money when there is an issue like that so it's not prevent a good attorney fees and i'm just pointing out that there is you know those provisions in place and that there are mechanisms in place that this contract in that case after analyzing other cases the marist court found that on things that medical providers are generally not third party beneficiaries of insurance policies particularly workers compensation payment directly to the medical providers and the the policy language that was analyze in my this is the same policy language that is found in  additional i don't think that there's anything in the record in showing that there's an assignment of rights and i think that ghassan in the cases make it very clear that you need to be insured under the policy and that's just not the case here  into the policy the policy says and we would pay all obligations required under the workers compensation well so you can't you have to read that policy to include section eight point two d after two thousand and five it was not before the march quarter it is not and it took my mind it could not be clearer in justice i mean you put a gun to my head i said i'd rather have the private right of action but here's the other side of the point i hope i didn't give up  quit and this is really kind of an interesting point counsel says there's a previously existing legal duty and this is one of the things that we're fighting about is that previously existing legal duty to the medical providers we think it is