believe the exclusive remedy protection is predicated as a condition preceding an obligation to pay for the worker's compensation claim either directly or with reimbursement record to pay and to have  know any cases where the court held this was a viral employee relationship and there had to be hundred read the words so what is the purpose then in your mind of the language in the absence of an agreement to the contrary that must have some meaning we know by world will settle horrible laws we can't just ignore language in effect what is meant that if they're going to be responsible that they're not going to seek reimbursement for office oh trying to follow your question i think what's your own ethics and there's nothing there's nothing that you're right and it doesn't mention the term reimbursement but i'm citing steps as they will be responsible for providing insurance in pain for right if that's the case and the work is going to be covered under a legitimate them you know here you know the system is being turned upside down because a great is trying to prevent yes but was there an agreement between staff on site in any of the other would be defendants no they just said this is standard common law right of to staff on site and staff i'm site a fifty dollars an hour to the employee in the workman's comp premiums it cetera because based upon an hourly  cost of twenty dollars so android's paying hundred dollars an hour and the staff on site is spending seventy dollars an hour and there appears to be gross income of thirty dollars an hour for staff on site and according to your claim there should be reimbursement in addition to the seventy dollars or if there's an agreement to the contrary then because it's an arm's one transaction transaction it would seem to be reasonable because stefan cited is making thirty dollars an hour on this employee well none of those numbers are in the records and i know they aren't so we don't but if you're hot i am arguing the glass is half empty and you're arguing the glass is empty because you're claiming that because there isn't anything in the record that reasonable hypothecation is not reasonable and shouldn't be allowed and your hypothecation which is speculative at best because it presumes that staff onsite is actually contract to prevent or provide an employee at a loss because supposedly there isn't any way in which snap on site supposedly has cover true but if it's an arm's length transaction it's reasonable it's more reasonable to conclude that the clocks were covered in the rate of pay that android was giving to staff on site than not i don't know why that would be true that because if i say it is still in business it's not bankrupt unless of course it does things inconsistently and based upon astronomical or astrological signs determines what the rates are going to be based which they rely on if you don't pay and you don't reimburse up front we don't want to have a system where people can choose and sign later in the game oh army people here or are we not is the agreement does not have to address the i guess subcategory of reimbursement simply to say one of the other parties used it has exclusive determination pay under the statute to reimburse but won't mean a lawyer or workman's compensation and at the same time get sued by the boy that they are supervising why would any borrowing employer in their right mind take on double indemnity or double liability they would be responsible for quote unquote joints and several liability a for the workman's comp and right for failing to pay for the employees that show up and ultimately was injured no there are many benefits