have here we're really just talking about two things in my view which number one would be the permission of the employer and number two is because of accident martin worst part is a seventeen year  old who left high school his junior year went to work i did not have any applicable work experience or training especially with the type of work done with the response but how does that tie into this case but if you have any training i mean this to occur our point is the cause is you have a young man teenager who goes to work in a place with no safety rules no safety procedures no safety training allowed to do i'm sorry p p sauces that personal risk is compensable if some aspect of the employment contribute to the risk or the likelihood of injury greater right tell me if i understand your case you're saying yes this was a personal thing he was involved however the fact of employer gave him permission to use dangerous equipment without properly training him is an aspect of the probation they did without examining the ocean record and the fire marshal so so we really get to go you know it credibility determination on that issue permission and the fire marshal or the local we haven't and they're not reviewed by the commission problem is you know he was presented with this information on trust emanation and the arbitrator decided us well it's it's really a question without having written decision from the commission because arbitrator's decision really doesn't say anything about the information that are in these reports motion put he gave permission and he wrote it two or three times during the course of the investigation six months status reports are sent to the response also sent to the teamsters so all of this is  that mention anything about him given permission the only report was this final four and that's the one he disputed i don't know if well there are records of fifty something pages moshe's not just the final  their thinking but when i asked them by status reports i wasn't counting just a written stop because there was something in the ocean report talking about phone calls that were made you know on a regular basis so you know maybe it was i was thinking one on a sporadic basis two or three times during the investigation but but from a standpoint of if we look if we believe the hearing officer and we believe the accuracy of this information th he did give permission and then at the very end when you read that closing conference you know it's a bit disturbing i think that some of the things in the commons mr general when they were talking about you know you need to have your people examined by medical doctors to see if they're even qualified medically to wear a respirator and he makes a comment can we make him pay for those exams i mean it's just the attitude of this company that you know i it and also it's unclear i mean of course this has been going to have been submitted it's in the record the ocean report and one investigator was sent at the beginning took some photos and so forth and then another investigator was assigned who actually well the point is i mean this is where we get to hear say that and and the purpose of hearsay which is if you put all these people on the witness stand and cross examine them you find all these things out that are perfectly clear from reading the report or might be interpreted in a different way well i think i don't think it's hearsay i think because we offered both we offered the whole thing we offered that no i just you want to prove the truth of the investigators assertion that then mill said he gave permission oh i'm not really i'm i'm offering it no because he says this investigation when they've had six months to figure out their game plan what they're going to do what they're going to say and then he comes up and testifies believe me i tried my best to get an osha individual to under oath so you have three things at the beginning and we all know statements given at beginning or statements given six months later of scholarship they almost always change so our position is in this case oh shit did cite the company for violations for not training on how to use it x axis and settling or in conjunction with the barrel with flammable liquid any training in proper cutting the barrel this i think our evidence was the fact that there was no training whatsoever and you're talking about something like an acetylene torch and it's not a question if you have someone after twenty years experience on acetylene torches and someone who's reasons the ocean report we think is important because the ocean report in their citation which is the big citation on this explicitly states that they did not recognize its responsibility for the safe usage of cardinal weldon equipment process of being trained if you're trained as a child or down the street after a ball both ways all of that i just counted imbedded in that way when you're trained on this kind of equipment you're trained for the entire process not just he touches to a water based barrel you're talking about training or type of that and training his as to knowledge of the painter not knowledge as for the process there wasn't  depreciation is the best one of the you know just based on case law i don't think permission is as important as what caused the accident or seanie this as you know this court probably knows it was  the permission has to be a part of your theory under the facts of this case i think i think permission has to go there because the case law really talks about you know acquiescence by itself but i think it would be a tougher patiently to prove if if you found that he did not have the training and the expertise and so forth let's say that he did get permission but they allow this all this is a very small place it's not some place where you can do something without being seen so that's how acquiescence and sometimes the courts or the commission they confuse permission acquiescence they're two different animals so would it be tougher yes but i think permission here is established by mr masters testimony  related to the owners of that we don't know anything it was improper for the arbitrator to put that in there that he was a bias because he left it open so that's you know what i say about he is biased because of all these other things to be said to but