growth company he actually worked for the loaning employer and was paid by the loaning employer tri city him point to the original application for adjustment a plan was filed against tri city employment and originally they were handling the matter in the the petitioners counsel attended attempted to amend the application for adjustment of one and to name some grow company and zurich what you direct is the insurance carrier for some growth company that i mended application for adjustment of claim was dismissed which is where we are right now in front of you and on a legal issue as to whether or not that was appropriately dismissed and i would argue to you that it was not  quite frankly i'm when i asked this court i'm not sure what the arbitrator's decision actually can be interpreted as to saying or what the commission meant by that but he says two things number one the dacron of probation back  apply to the facts here and while i'm not sure at the commissioner saying we've looked at the facts and it doesn't relate back or are you don't even consider relation back in this situation i'm not really sure how you can interpret that  in the case law says that it should be liberally can liberally construed and that constructive notice is not in this situation with regards to the issues of notice and prejudice which really that the only prom as to relation back that there's an issue here because we know the original application was filed within the statute of limitations but with regards to that issue is where the issue of joins our liability comes in i think under relation back there are also cases out there and the commission that's really is an issue that has not been addressed much when it comes to workers compensation but the commission had a case where there were multiple different taxi companies and even though only one of the taxi companies had been named and there was no issue of mistaken identity and a great case they still allowed all of the other parties to be named because they have the same owner and because of the relationship they clearly knew that the action was going forward saying here and the message that's were to six sixteen often comes in where you have a corporate structure complex corporate structure in the server maybe believe we need to comb through the civil practice act to find at that point a relation back when the legislature wrote the various provisions of the act including section one and three and section one a for they have a statutory provision relating liability under that act is passed up or can be passed up through the chain of command the legislature included that provision probably for good logical sense because an employee of a plumbing contractor around a work site would not be privy to the contracts the building permits were a bit contractual relationships he only knows who he took orders from and he names that employer and the liability is passed up the legislature if they had intended to have the opportunity to include that same prevention section one a four in the legislature did not include any relation back bathroom so in section one a forward there actually is a requirement to join the tortfeasor years and the petitioners attorney in this case and when they are employment or any bankruptcy proceedings relating to the legion insurance would not have precluded the plaintiff from taking action against the actual bar employee or somebody who was aware of somebody who took boarders from the argument the circuit court accepted was an analogy to a parent to signs a note or guaranteeing a note on an automobile for a child if that child should in fact file for bankruptcy or maxi protection the de they were aware of this entity all along they had a chance to join this entity there was no service or attempt to join or this and that he this was not an act of misnomer or some mistake for some in twined corporations they had always had the opportunity to of the act indicates when you join both parties you can take advantage of the seven day notice requirement compelling each of the parties to state who has the liability that section of the act is not automatically and unlike section one  does not automatically join or save the statute against the people of legislature had intended that they easily could have added that in that provision there is no joint liability and in terms of the argument that there could have been a action but the judicial economy would presume that if you're going to have litigation between tri city and zurich american insurance on the sign grow company that all those things should be joined in the original action and any issues of that should be litigated before the involved twenty thirty employment they would have potentially been on the hook and liable and there was a stay against that action so how could we have filed a separate application and proceed to begin some ground when there would have been joint several liability stage i don't know that while i don't know that that that the