tell so she goes out and seeks the person that she believes has the greatest or good when they can turn around and say we do believe lewis from again in on unfortunately she thought this guy was a supervisor when he wasn't in there for you know given numbers it was their choice they made it well your honor is your argument really that it's reasonable for the employee to assume the person to whom she spoke was a representative of the company have a supervisory position over her and is that a body cause of a deception or something and if so that's sufficient your honor that is the argument as was discussed this morning we're not going to cite mission cases like originally that's what we have relied on coming up to that point that commission had actually made a finding of some exploits of the idea of bringing in her supervisor whether the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent in this particular case the evidence in the record by her she thought it was a supervisor and there's evidence in the record by the company saying he was no supervisor and he had no  made was against the memphis with the office because she said she thought it was her supervisor not just because she reasonably thought so your honor but because he is the person that told her what to do the fact that respondent bring somebody and say well  official company policy this man is not a supervisor's supervisor does not change the actual facts of what the man did he was the actual ship expert he's the one that told her what to do one anybody anybody within the company structure that make him or her seniority that another person who says you can work on him or she today suddenly becomes a supervisor for purposes of notice i don't think so i would expect  affirm the commissioner reversed and you find it was you found that there were sufficient we reverse the commissioner and we are from the commission was the commission they found there was sufficient notice because of what her job duties were in this particular case the given set of circumstances you know you have you're looking logical point let's go back to the beginning you acknowledge that this is a factual question and you're telling us all about this with the claimant only i think you're was he does not know the claimant know that all supervisors at the company where white gets yes so where is the reasonable conclusion he's a supervisor she knows they were  testimony that she knew all supervisors were white hats or her specific direct testimony is that she did believe this or boyd was reviewed supervisor that was the testimony not just that the management work and there was nobody expects only with the white hat on the floor so was there anybody in a supervisory role if mr boyd is not the actual supervisor telling people what to do in managing what is happening on the floor that night and there's no white hats around and who is managing and  i mean i know we sympathize with you it's a very terrible thing but the fact of the matter is somebody has to be able to factually decide who's a supervisor was and i  of authority on the floor and it was only after discussing with that person and that person telling her you're not going to get a promotion if you reported that she decided to do nothing further she did the right thing at the beginning when she got injured she went and saw the person on the floor immediately around her that had the greatest amount of authority that should suffice and the i cannot be asking for it to be compassionate those are the facts of the case and under those facts would urge th you even get started here since you've already had a warm up in the previous case you want to jump right in with that issue about whether or not the claimant subjective belief as whether or not void as a supervisor  is relevant to the commission's analysis should they be looking strictly from standpoint as from spam point to was he in fact her supervisor or could she reasonably have concluded that he was her supervisor supervise says most of the employers now in some companies the person on the floor ever may have to go to the human resources person you know it's not really a direct supervisor but it's the person who takes who to take the information and the person who's because she believes that this is the right guy to report it to doesn't make it so and every morning i walk in my office and my secretary should orders me you know she can't fire me you know so does that give her authority because she gives me orders  i'm saying but in this case because beyond that we should go to the doctors afterwards she denies having a work accident if that's if she already believes she told the employer that she was injured at work why would she have to withhold that way legally we can analyze it i noticed employers throughout this whole agency concept i think that's true in many cases that is supervised and so well you know well we never the case is just soon that in addition to all that accident because it should be reversed you know we get back to the basis for her not being truthful with the him with the medical providers and you know she was trying to protect her job or her promotion the fact of the matter is she denied having an accident you know the fact of the matter is she had degenerative changes we've been this acknowledge or a little bit different than being able to punish them if they didn't say this is like this is like a journeyman to the to the aquinas it doesn't make sound the employer doesn't make them supervised or very well respectfully roger for going back to this idea of principle an agent do we think under normal circumstances somebody out of the workforce got some guy off the floor and the only guy on the floor it's telling everybody what to do what machines to work on they get injured they  tell that person i got injured on the floor i think probably most people would think that's the obvious reasonable thing to do and that man is the one that told her don't do anything further need be in the structure some corporation permission would find you want making the argument that there is a large question of this principle agent and why do we just assume because the commission didn't say this this matter wasn't some management in the company they specifically said he wasn't a supervisor that's