anymore and these are complicated matters both factually and legally we have to appeal this there is some overlap but there are significant differences each of them and i will take up the first case the thirty five fifty case which involves sir mark america's pain and suffering and one of the treatment centers on archer and of course central not incidental and by then the providers under the contracts that they were before the the trial courts under the statutes that have been passed by the legislature even under the insurance policies as those insurance policies and gray after necessarily the insured and the workers compensation act providers are central not incidental the reason i say is because in two thousand and five before something called the affordable care act was a piece of natural legislation the for the benefit of workers and not benefit writers and it is down legislatures decision not to as you suggest separately put this provision in the insurance or elsewhere doesn't mean any point and i'm like would say i sympathize with the position that your client finds itself in that the question here is how does your client vindicate th interest is it and to wreck action against an insurance company which is rare for a man on the sea holder or is it some other method that is available to your client to have no alternatives there is nothing out there that you can do to recover in these two cases for a long period of spam or stop hundred thousand dollars worth of them a question like  employer who has the application to pay these bills income see the kosi employer and the employer says wait a second i bought insurance to cover these medical expenses and in the five is insurance policy itself is not in the wrecker we quote from from within we call the standard language i believe but in the final case the policy itself is not in the the statute which graphs the policy but i do believe there are two there are two sides of the same providers in direct action against insurance companies but now you have to assume that true this amendment they the legislature meant to fax this signed ability then so now we should disregard those cases and find all mention our legislative history to to indicate this that the legislature meant that now workers can assign to medical providers thereby to receive these pain and upset we're not  claim for any workers disability payments but i believe the legislature does very clearly use it you see it separates the part of the parties to which certain things are entitled the word has been always will be entitled to their disability the settlement agreement there are a number of ways to look at it number one liberty mutual their lawyers are right on the settlement agreement number two liberty mutual are the ones writing the checks and number three is i cited the right to display the asians who  under its policy isn't doing anything and is resisting efforts by these medical providers to recover for services a friend heard right and the workers compensation at the medical services that are paid for are the bills were insufficient and if you go when you look at the right answer in the file we've made on denials of the material allegations in the complaint so it's kind of the situation you really don't have any factual development of what the facts that is within the worker's compensation act the bills still must be reasonable and necessary the treatment needs to be reasonable and necessary so by may or may not be an issue as far as whether the bad bill contains all the data that's necessary to pay it bad treatment that was provided still needs to be something that is found by the commission  if you are asking about the language in the statute that says we're to notify you if at all instead the requirements are there there's nothing in the statute requiring that we notify whether there's a dispute we're going to pay outstanding medical bills the employee the employee and liberty that that amount is it and liberty says nothing approves the settlement and then wants to take the position that some of these bills providers was to cut out having had the middle person having to play a paid employee so for instance if a respondent if an employer is at the commission and they're having a dispute over whether a surgery was disputes that are still rising with that at any point in time there's no jurisdiction on time that the lease attorney can file petition for attorney's fees and penalties and raise issues regarding saying that on that once the case is completed the provider has the right to go after the employee to collect any i'm paid not at all and obviously if something like that happens the employee is going to either a third party and their employers are going to tender their defense or the red crescent is the suggested earlier and there is a definitely a remedy for them directly under that i think there's many referring to say that a perfect prohibits any assignment and then when you look at the assignment that's in the record on appeal it is a very proud to sign it so i think counsel's argument about what your time is doesn't really match way the documentation in the record i guess the way i mean the way to interpret the act is that section twenty one per head hits are assignments of the final awarded and that this assignment agreement assigns the right to the worker's compensation act and it doesn't delineate only for the purposes that you know x y and z only for the purposes of pursuing this particular case i think that would be a different issue but i met what mr mandela is saying is he didn't assign his final  agreed to pay the medical providers how does they assign that and if that's what it was contravene the exploitation against assigning the reward the employee didn't assign perhaps this individual did not have anything else to assign to the nasheed be documented in bed in agreement here it's saying all and so i think just on its face it contradicts the ads and i think that you have to be  cases liberty has paid reasonable and necessary medical expenses for each of these workers within thirty days so that no interest is payable resale just because somebody submit some bill doesn't mean the amount is recent one necessary it might have all the detail that it's required to have but if writing sample for physical therapy were being cherished for the therapy plus the hot and cold there is some interest payable to the medical providers and so how is it when they have the statutory right for interests that they recover how do they do that i disagree aspies have a statutory but by the carrier right kids say oh how is it they add the imp to my medical provider has a course of action against the employee for interest anderson you're trying to parse out this interest is a totally separate entity but it's not it goes together because it says under that subsection each twenty that they can sue for both well but the interest will be we all agree there's only one party me when i hear that is that sounds more like a legislative issue and that that you know medical providers believe that they're left without a remedy that you know then perhaps really what they're looking at is asking you know the legislature to make additional amendment and as far as if i could just real briefly say with the breach of contract i mean i think it was pretty clear that there would be mutual is not a party to the contract and that you know that the trop order was correct in finding that say don't pay the medical bills that we will but they i do disagree as far as councils representations that they're prohibited it's just that if they decide to pay bills that doesn't mean that their insurance policy will reimburse them for it ok i would just make  might not be the best remedy but it's the remedy the legislature provided and maybe the answer to this and to my mother lives with the legislature well you don't forget that in this case we have alleged otherwise so that the so that the worker is not left with a situation where they have nobody to turn to and they are still liable to the medical provider and so wouldn't that then speak to the practice of including in a settlement agreement the specific amount of bills outstanding and the interest that's so that the carrier can say oh we paid off reasonable necessary medical expenses and we don't interest with with with that i don't know who wrote those two seller agreements the wording is identical and it is my position that the  insurance companies are saying don't worry we'll deal with the matter with doctors down the road such a problem anymore they were perfectly happy with what you sometimes hear in the real world is the pay  cases i have not seen them across the board a broad spectrum and i do not pretend the petitioner's attorney and i only have a limited number of medical provider clients i find very soon these companies not just liberty that some of the bills were paid and some were not many of them were paid after the settlement agreement but not all of them so you have three components of damages in a fifty case you have unpaid medical bills you have accrued interest on unpa over there was a reference to the trailers case that was recently decided i read the pain you know question and said well there was no effort to distinguish that case from the circuit i hear and for make that effort and i can wait until the fifty one case where i