at the core of the dispute today are the principles of statutory construction as well as amendments made to the on my worker's compensation act but if we take a step back what it's really about is fairness creating a level playing field and holding parties accountable for the actions of those things part of it's dettori construction analysis that you just mentioned no i'm giving you the thirty thousand dollars view look the bad behavior that took place and how it was two thousand and seven it was a different act where does this amendment specify that it speaks to the denial of medical treatment saying is that when a doctor prescribes treatment he called the insurance company what is the insurance company's role paying for the services that he wants to buy the authorization that they give sure it's for payment but in eloquent descent but we still have this language and you have hollywood casino well look at it another way to what eight point seven j is actually doing is pointing out that that this penalty as a whole we've been available but if the respondent compliance with this new tool that we're giving them for their tool kit we're going to give them the we're going to presume that now they're not going to face penalties unless you can overcome as complete a question it all starts with the tree you don't treatment is payment there will never would there ever be a situation where an insurance company would authorize the treatment and at the same time say d i agree and that happens a lot but i think the final point is that the word authorization the word authorization is speaking to both a payment because the last one you can find and acuity their one refuses to authorize pain because payment and treatment are so intertwined there is no dividing they are one in the same when it comes to when when the statute speaks to an employer denying or refusing to authorize they're not talking about a denial of a claim all together where the injured worker needs to go behavior regarding the lame and they are appropriate when it is deliberately done in bad faith or for improper perks one thousand elemental days on the other hand are simply for delay with no adequate justification not therefore i believe it is inappropriate to do iron hollywood decision to determine whether or not nineteen i don't these would be appropriate in a certain situation it's not a failure to authorize situation it's benefits being withheld or refuse and yes state these benefits are coming in the future but the word refused implies that these benefits have never been given so when  would be the time to ask for a penalty for this withholding a refusal after we get a i mean i suppose right now since we the commission ruled in our favor as far as causalities and the need for medical treatment we could go file another nineteen be asking for penalties for the delay that we suffered but that undermines the whole point that core tenant of workers compensation let's hold respondents was accountable for their misdeeds like we do to should take these two thousand and eleven amendments into consideration i think under the plain reading reading of the words you can infer you can read that authorization of payment is specifically talking about payment and agreement that they're intertwined it's a day to provide and pay so we asked this court to find that hollywood does not apply to questions regarding that d l and we ask you to find that these amendments do in fact change the law you know without it if you don't have any other questions underpinning of this entire argument that is the conduct of the responder case and i'm not going to go into a great deal of intel because it's late set forth in our briefing quite specifically but here's a case where the insurance companies left respond accepted  case paid benefits paid for medical treatment authorized the surgery subsequently discovered records that had never been revealed by the petitioner and in those records found an injury where the condition refers to this injury being caused by something when he was in the service and had prior surgery on the arbitrator the commission refused to acknowledge what is plainly present in the records and i want to emphasize this is not about whether this case compensable the commission has ruled that and subsequently they respond as of feeds by a simple refusal on to receive treatment as opposed to refuse to make pain i understand that's the primary issue and i want to get that in just a nd what i'm trying to point out you know your honor is that it is a necessary element of this commission to decide whether you willfully violated or you didn't we wouldn't just i didn't understand i didn't want my are we talking about is there anything in the record that made that find so i will move on i just wanted to you i wanted to address that issue because it's something that troubled me greatly because i was one that made the recommendation to reject the surgery in this case and and it's a fundamental part of the case i get it on the basis of your reading of the law know logic and reasoning and mine doesn't it does it does and councils argument is primarily because if point seven j that was amended in two thousand and eleven somehow changes the law and it doesn't a point seven j is a section on utilization review utilization review is not of issues case and it as i point out in our brief utilization review had nothing to do with the decision to revoke the authorization for surgery the decision was based soley on the center in the records about the petitioner reporting that this injury had occurred in during military service before he ever worked for the response so we didn't employ utilization reviewer sections well to get an independent of those ammunition because we weren't disputing that and his argument because that's the only section that makes any reference whatsoever to the potential penalties but it's not applicable in this case what's what's what's important in this case is one thousand al we know it's clear that counsel has waive k and hollywood casino is is the law it makes sense i make agree under the right circumstances that penalty should be awarded for a few authorized surgery which don't exist in this case but the statute doesn't allow it it doesn't provide for and trying to read it into the statute is simply going too far in trying to suggest that these amendments that took place in two thousand and eleven specifically under utilization review somehow payment payment of medical expenses and the words payment and authorize are two very distinct principles we're not talking about something that we're we refused to pay in fact as i pointed out if you look at the conduct that there was behind this case they paid for everything up until this dispute and that's why i want to discuss the underlying facts and beginning my comments because it's important when you look at the fact that the conduct in this case was pay pay pay pay pay until there is a reasonable dispute and there's nothing in the statute that says we should be penalized when we refused to authorize something but this fight the fact that we had authorized it up until up to a point the statute just doesn't address it and my again my comments might have that perhaps it should be changed address exactly what the court a commoner i'm  counsel was arguing that maybe this legislature should change the statute but the decision of hollywood casino prop properly interpreted the statute that was as it was written in the amendment in two thousand and seventy point seven j has absolutely no help whatsoever because then the section that doesn't apply in this case thank you thank you your honors but i'm not going to respond to any of the factual arguments the reason why eight point seven j lies in this case because we don't read the act piece like he's read the act as  all eight has its fingerprints all over the we don't read that in isolation same but this shows a clear contemplation by the legislature to move the penalties or actually not even to move them to acknowledge that the penalties have always been available in their estimation and create an extra protection for respondent who decides to use this new tool they have all mine if when you read the hollywood decision what you get this court search and scoured the act and we could not find the words failure to authorize printed anywhere in there they're there now you do it it's up to you to do what you choose with that i think it's so it's is why i'm looking back to provide and pay and provide certainly doesn't mean that the insurance company is going to actually render the care themselves now they're going to give you access to that we've seen we're talking  on absolutely compensation includes a benefits and the compensation that the worker in the worker is getting compensated with his treatment right now he's getting repaired doesn't he's getting the surgery he