specific job information concerning the manual requirements of the patient's work activities and the order to provide an opinion concerning the issue of causal relationship he find it written in his reports yes he did not have any challenges regarding the treatment rendered but he never offered thinking about the reason with us of the charges so i don't know how the commission found it it's not anywhere in his reports need more information before i can give you my opinion he was told that petition teacher told the lie to ninety percent overhead work he wanted confirmation of that before he would render his opinion and he got country evidence problems now next this is important because again the commission is trying to the basis with its determinations of the reason most of the charges of the medical treatment and doctor segment plus the causal connection opinion and even if there was some confusion as to dr segment's closer connection and it was certainly clarified in his final report now granted i believe in his report finding credible is one thing but not section a j is created this super court judge was correct in her reasonings it's i think it's a very simple issue here on in this case as many others there's a group disabilit group health fund that's involved here there's a union fund they using group funds paid nine hundred thousand some odd dollars towards payment of medical bills this him are was given was awarded credit by the commission to respond and this was absolutely correct i don't think that's really an issue in dispute the issue of dispute is what happens after that and i would suggest i think that would really can't find in the court decision which talks about the following issue that i would like to raise regarding each a question i think it has some import here what happens in a situation where outside of the relationship between the not part of the worker's compensation proceeding it's basically a private agreement outside of the worker's comp arena between the claimant and the provider it could be the union it could be any occupational group we're no credit was given and if you follow the logic the commission which on the one hand grants ha credit but the other hand takes it away and says we have to pay them back right now there is no point to this statute it's not only logical and consistent play believe against intentionally kept to a new one hand award each a credit and then immediately find that the employer has to pay back the provider of those same benefits  the real situation at some point usually way the provider of the benefits finds out which they had this claim has become compensable after final work usually that's all testified their numbers were way down which was a subsequent state so they kept changing their testimony as they were going along a lot on all of this is in the record and then finally the final thing was they  petitioner of the claimant didn't work at all with the stools who which is a complete fabrication his employees are saying you work with this tool that president comes and says no i don't he doesn't work with the schools that is this evolution of evidence that's occurring this and this case and that to me it's a favor cation all along the way the evidence changes or theories of the case change they change the evidence and they put in evidence that it's it's clearly an abuse of this whole judicial process that disappointing to me but and i am asking that this court reinstate the penalties or world war in this case because they will probably already have for the reasons that are stated in the planning on working at home before i don't have to pay any benefits the kind of the defense is that is this something now that's going to be in the commission decisions that are the response are going to be able to rely on in order to be down paying claimants without any repercussions of penalties or attorney's fees that this if that's the case then there's no need for the penalties or attorney's fees provisions in the act because everyone every response could come forth the sale is this claim that he said he was working at his house sufficient basis and i don't think it is and i submit that it's not that's all i have to say but that i'm healthy i do question of h e m i think that this commission was correct in this decision circuit court was i appreciate consuls concern regarding protecting his client but i think the fears are greatly exaggerated and soon as the employer is made aware of the final decision and when the provider of the benefits here the union makes a demand upon the petitioner for a claim reimburse that's what we've paid we're going to step in and hold them safe and harmless but if you don't that's a big question i'm not sure i suppose you could petition perhaps the commission to somehow withdraw the order of credit because we're not holding them safe and harmless perhaps isn't one thousand cheap we can go to circuit court and force the final word which which says that we have to reimburse we get our credit we have to hold the petitioner safe and how much beyond then i'm not sure what he could do he may be able to file separate cause of action circuit court which is what sort of court