better to call ourselves by the number of the case in which we represented the employer we were seventy eight seventy six and seventy nine the second x case preceded include south central transit or weed or mcauliffe as party in interest or or representative of a party in interest and there are cases of chadwick case the chamber's case the old ben cole case and the more recent sheaffer case the none of nine using case seventy eight of the same party none of them separately in the penalty nor all taken together cover of the factual situation we have here because south central transit as party response as a defendant was not include for one insurance carrier filed a petition for review in the case that was handled by attorneys for another insurance carrier but it's all the same part well it does not mean that there are substantial interest at stake for the for the employer remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order which would be i presume that to be just as that is part of your last questions would be to to decide to review a bit but you know what's very interesting how how else would you determine that it's void unless it can come up here on the hill and i believe that's what mr mann craig is trying to argue is that it has to come here in order to be determined that it's void the commission can't determine that the the they did not but in any event the desired outcome for about it no use to get it back is to get it back before the commission so we can have the oral arguments on the merits of the case that we should have had to begin with so that the case could be disposed of on the merits before the commission was whether or not southcentral transit related to the second injury date in this case whether or not the issue of causation was proved and whether they were the viable employer for that date of injury one was found to be liable for a day if the other one wasn't bad enough that insurance cup carrier presumably consulted with their insured i don't know that that happened but you know regardless and they decided to appeal the case on the merits of the case to determine which insurance carrier is the bible once so yeah yeah here and there for you who richard has said has been injured on both x and y i believe the underlying decision was yes there was an injury time there was a work related injury on both i would disagree with that you're on course because we're doing everything it certainly makes me happy but yes ultimately i think the case needs to go back to the commission for a determination of the underlying merits of the case apart from the issue of jurisdiction and that once the court once the commission has decided the overall underlying merits of the case the case can come up or stand as it may be but at this point i think south central transit needs to have its day before the commission to argue the issues the only way to get around here is to and i don't think i as far as the circuit court i mean that the very limited nature of whether or not the circuit court has jurisdiction was argued in the briefs it was never argued before and never before we need it we have a remit border which i think we clearly we almost all cases there would not be a final or correct and the way around that is what i don't know that there's a way around it it goes back to the commission as far as  far as we're concerned and that's what i'm asking this court to do today like you unless there's any further question my my question i guess what i would argue in this case is the prejudice not only to mr like to refer to the insurance companies i agree on employer they all mr specter benefits and he's sitting on two cases that are valid that haven't been order size that's the cost most instances mission of ingrid ok i got that however they can amend their petition for review so is he i have two cases two accidents i have one that the and another five years on that but again to me that's not clear from the circuit court's order at all and i don't know what the commission would do with that and even the commissioner who broke the order is no longer with commission so that makes things even more using i aware everybody was the same in this case it's a little different because you're bringing along an insurance company that never wanted to be brought along that never wanted to appeal their decision that agreed they were going to pay benefits and be left alone we go back to the commission their stock and petitioner stock because they wanted to pay now they can't because the whole she bang is on appeal so nobody can pay or will pay because each decision is kind of intertwined which they wouldn't have been had we just let it go so i guess i would appeal on the argument of this is not judicial economy this is not a good thing there is prejudice in this case and if we go back and the commission says ok we'll handle it all together and we're going to change all the liability of the parties then we're back here talking about commission to all agreed that we should have there should be rules yes thinking of the big lebowski of this isn't vietnam there should be rules about is a consolidated decision