cases the lawyer handling the case will tell the client that if the wonderful settlement but the client knows what his injury is and if it  take it will get night work in the whistleblower case and met him to believe this was not going to be his only recovery counsel why did your client go see the lawyer for forty because he he mos with me is that every time a lawyer settles a personal injury case in the claim goes to a cocktail party or a bar and meets another lawyer who says that money wasn't good enough well practice cases additional recovery coming and told by the attorneys that that's the case they continue to reassure him that the case when applying to a rich person going to start questioning at that point because the amount of settlement procedural posture and that the client plaintiffs of the lilly or any legal malpractise case files a complaint making a very clear allegations and those allegations gave rise to a motion to dismiss based on the statue limitations to the things that were admitted in the complaint at that time the clerk grants the motion but reduces it to a six one five basis for purposes of the play to have been made against me because it was lacking in any things you say ok well i don't know anything about medicine something to believe you're telling me with a lawyer says something to you about the future i think it's a good point was that nobody can guarantee the future but they're saying in their expert legal opinion that something is likely to happen told don't worry and that there would be more recovery coming down the line now that is absolutely a statement as to a future event with numerous possible variables coming into play with regard to that but more questioning the extent of his recovery where he's looking to see if there will be a more later bill through those reveal and i don't think that there's any basis in the record to conclude otherwise that the only input second be drawn from that allegation is that the client was indeed worried about the recovery and was worrying that the recovery was insufficient that comports exactly with what mr grenell himself personally alleged in his original complaint so where is he getting at it on reasonably well with as when everybody else was getting it as we take in conjunction with the occasion that we see for the first time in the amended complaint was that in addition to discussing the range of the settlement that he was going to be receiving as compared with his coworkers was that his crew workers who were not receiving temporary total disability towards a common end and that is alleged explicitly in the complain doesn't really have a lot of significance bought the allegation that was made and check under the occupational diseases act is significant in that it measures the time for bringing the worker's compensation claim based on the last state of possible exposure of  the more significant aspect of that satellite was dead mr brumley would be receiving the equivalent of sixty eight dollars a week is just a spurt mention compared against his knowledge that he had been receiving eighteen hundred dollars a week there to fo and when you consider it in conjunction against the fact that he had been off work at that period for seven years and had not been receiving anything during those seven years to put aside questions of medical bills to put aside the fact that he was alleging that he was completely and totally disabled from work and putting aside the fact that an attorney would know he's not getting one hundred percent of past wages and he's not going to get one hundred percent of disability from a wage standpoint that fine at that time would conclusion thought that one hundred twenty five thousand dollars is not compensating him for the time that he's been off work is not compensating him for all the medical bills that he's incurred to do date is not compensating him for the medical bills that he's going to have in the future as a result of an occupational disease and is certainly not compensating him for the fact that he's never going to be able to work again you know this lady would get three feet deep we it would be sixty six percent of his average weekly wage subject retaliatory discharge what else could you know i don't did not study that complaint for purposes of today's argument i guess my question here is that it is that it was stupid the other workers would not have him he was comparing himself to other work whistleblowers i don't know if they were good terminated as well but the importance of mr obama's conversations with the other workers is that they recognize that gaging in seizure litigation as it related to the workers compensation claims they were quoting to the amended complaint that we're seeing these employees to go without medical benefits to go without a temporary total disability for the expressed purpose alleged in the amended complaint of having these workers compromise the settlement better use of their cases that is what is alleged was in m mind at the time that he signed the settlement in this case knowing that he had experienced six years of the same type of seizure litigation tactics that all his other coworkers were complaining about and so there is circumstances alleged there and that is that he should have no and for that reason he should have known it was a bad still crapware or he should have known that the settlement was the product of cavalry are those the same thing they're not they're not clock as to potential bad actors be a builders or accountants of their business partners as in carson or good night whereas in this case there's actually no difference between this case and calls and in that respect the amended complaint shows was acting inappropriately so this was a station calls it was that is business partners had essentially provided fraudulent numbers and he settles the case that represented by counsel the counsel did not participate in a settlement mediation but he subsequently comes to learn that his partners had submitted fraudulent numbers and returns a claim against those are ok will this court determine in any case whereas at the time you learned that your partners provided you fraudulent number of years depending on which was bash in your brain but for purposes of the legal malpractise case associated with the attorney's failure to suss out that the partners had fortunately compiled numbers that is two years and those two years had passed at the time saying that the clock starts to run on and on bad settlement regardless of whether he had any reason to think his lawyer screwed up because he could look at the other side and say boy they were really aggressive they were chirps so i got a legal case against my lawyer the lawyer after the settlement and saying are you sure we got this right this seems low i don't like it and in the lawyer saying yes this is this was a good start it's the best we could do you should be happy now go home and stop bothering versus all the others coming to the lawyer and saying this was a this is also and this is enough they says don't worry there's more coming that's different than the lawyer saying that for something that was fine which i don't think you're alleging he was saying he was saying that's fine just saying don't worry