parental occupational exposure to chemicals and solvents i appear in with more frequency in various jurisdictions around the country and the reason for that is that science technology and medicine are interpreted by the laws of texas and arizona run the idea that sort of permeates all these arguments in all these places the idea that this is here on a two six one five motion on the pleadings and the standards are very familiar the father who is not insured for purposes of workers compensation exclusivity and therefore proximate cause in fact is impossible it's that second there for that's the problem here because that's a question of fact twerp and what that means and basically misunderstanding that arm that was moving faster by the way that the complaint was drafted it's so what we try to do is we try to hold the complaint to really was basically facts and parties but it's basically stayed the same with the intention of trying to focus the court on what we believe are the proper issues which is that there's no workers compensation issue here and it really is a question the  ultimately the plaintiff's position be it even if there was an injury to a male employee in that way in the form of a transitory change to his reproductive system  that wouldn't make a difference in terms of the child's independence a jury that's exactly right your honor that's the exact point injury to the father is not necessarily allegation not a complaint for the child it doesn't need to be there and so that the defendant is really trying to do is say no there's a necessary allegation but it's not you're exactly right there doesn't need to be an injury it doesn't need to be alleged rape or is an injury to the father  in the arizona appellate court at least was pretty definite about this would be an expansion of arizona law the all argument in the supreme court seemed to that special relationship sufficient relationship was never really addressed so specter is now moving into rats and but that's really what's up before us here is the relationship between reality and this trial sufficient reproduction reproduction issues and here in our complaint these are all allegations about reproductive chemicals reproductive risk and reproductive injury having a child is the point of reproduction that is the closeness of the connection geddes with christ says it's not a promise it's and there is a relationship there and i think there's a little different issue if you believe that it would or any differences in how texas and arizona might approach these issues not really substantively because the substance of the duty analysis are really those particular factors and have to you do have to look at the facts you do have to do some sort of a ration of the terms of providing causes of action for people who are insured and acting in their division of those common law causes of action are the real particularly with respect to statutory schemes business principal place of business and with regard to fathers into different plants into different cities into different states around the same time doing basically the same job and both have children with birth defects and there's not yes controlling authority and either jurisdiction that supports your position is an illinois court or flying a foreign state's law entitled to say this is what look at this and say you said a very sensitive issues of public policy and it needs a court has recognized this kind of a choice in this circumstance and we should not be the first cases and in fact there are a three courts that have decided against these cases there's a new york appellate division which we cite those cases the california court of appeal and of course the delaware supreme court involved in precisely these cases no one has recognized them yet and no one has recognized them for a reason because and particularly under the circumstances i'm glad chair because plai council referred to it the causation issue the plaintiffs allege that the employers and the employees were not injured on the job they suffered no direct injury according to them that  that was a tactical play thing i think euro news right after the peterson case they changed their allegation to say there was no direct entry but back release us wondering what is the problem here we don't know with the cause a mechanism was supposedly there i you know i'm i'm a little confused by motorola's position i'm as big as moreover takes the position that if anything and if you change the facts a little bit and say these chemicals didn't cause changes to the employees reproductive system but rather the employee susceptible  all the fathers out driving one day and one of these blood clots in the system his brain and he causes a an automobile accident that there are other he isn't relegated to workers compensation no you see that his son sitting in the passenger seat well your honor if you're injured it because of the injury this is a different kind of the injury because this is an injury to his reproductive system whether it's temporary or permanent it doesn't really matter it's an injury to him and that injury according to them has to be the reason why for them to be able to bring a claim against motorola has to be the reason why the child this injured so if go through workers come out i don't know i think that's that's a different kind of situation and in that kind of situation certainly if it's not a member of his family workers comp is viewed as a bargain with the work there and his family personal injury i've seen any cases like that in the workers compensation contacts which say that the third party whether it's a family member or anybody else who suffers they're all personal family member and still get his bottom under the worker's comp so we think it would apply but basically i don't think you have to reach that issue because you have a question of duty and whether a duty is o those cases is that they are being directly impacted and both circumstances it's exposure through the mother's bloodstream right whether it's a male whether it's the woman who is pregnant is there first of all you have some certainty you know what you're talking about you know that you have a pregnant woman in your employ and you have the fetus on the premises and that has changed the analysis in the cases in the workers count cases that hubert you're talking about is according to plaintiffs the male workers for not insured so what you're talking about doing is imposing a duty on the employer one of the opinion they'll say well if you're talking about employer employee of context the child in that case who said to me is never on the premises which is our situation here they are a stranger to the something other than with them clearly you have to provide a reasonably safe workplace if you have an independent today which is what they're saying which they have to say to the as yet unconceived string of people willing to do see what you're talking about as i understand your argument is that you could leave the duty body of for example the employee did not use protection measures contributory strong recognize this kind of a toy say just too many complicated issues there are too many issues about the burden on the employee and the employer and then at the end of the day with the burdens are in terms of mechanism is supposed to be so we know the system is is like in any case that involves expert testimony the expert will tell you it's if you want the point of steam levy well the science has the power over the past five years so that we know already at our workplace exposure can last for five years and sell their offspring conceived within that i mean that's that's all and this is a well run i think that in the ordinary case it so we don't really know how to deal with us and we should point out this is sad them loose now that we've been looking at in this case and they've gone through five complaints to at least have a theory by now now it's fab motorola gives these chemicals to the parents more rule it tells them how to use chemicals or the world gives them insufficient protection motorola doesn't run them with the reproductive dangers motorola doesn't use environmental controls mo final stop of proximate cause but well you have to legislate comes before and that's the first between paragraph seventeen about one sixty five of our complaint and because it is on the pla to take a look at the complaint pretty closely and that's why we need to go over the a big portion of the opening brief to really settle where those facts could be found so that you can take a look at them and see if they really do support the elements of the not just there is it first the ability and the relationship are a couple of labels but the factors used to determine whether something is foreseeable or something is there is a sufficient relationship those factors  relationship status is satisfied and the same facts and satisfied to satisfy really both of those tests i believe that we have to look at the substance behind those labels courts the factors go and spread in texas and stanley and arizona and then look at our allegations and see how they fit in  just on a final note the idea of limitless by ability and what can be done what can be done now it can be done through the male employee who is working at the plant is the same thing he should be doing for the female employee that's working right next problem this case is going to be true can the ruthless men and this court is going to stand in recess for about five minutes