he says correctly that is correctly these opinion is that the dislocation episodes were the result of the prior surgery then mr hammer when he says it would make a difference if the third one month or thirteen months afterwards he still would have cause analysis the employer is relieved of liability only if the intervening accident completely breaks to chain which is not the case with the equipment condition so let's assume that you are correct in this novel here the thing that i can't accidents so in the course of our research we were able to identify a case that involved a subsequent work related accident that gave rise to the whether work related or not language in the context of  that there is no case law to support that are well i mean other than the longstanding proposition that the employer takes the employee as they find them is out by and by the says the line of cases over the last fifty six years but how does that help you with this case on the other end of the spectrum because argument is that the causation standard for some reason is flooded when we have a subsequent accident with a new employer yes where there's still an open workers compensation is for example mr hamad injured himself at home conclude that he experienced accidents while working for hills and award compensation but the fact that he has a prior open worker's compensation place completely fits of causation standard on it's head and now we have to prove that that's what an intervening subsequent work related accident alsa should be based on but we do think that those four factors can be adopted and applied in subsequent cases or in this case involving subsequent work related accidents and consistency when we're talking about preexisting conditions in a preexisting condition line of cases the question is whether the employment cause or contributed to the injury if we talk about a subsequent work related accident in the the aggravation then why shouldn't the first employer be liable for both on rare occasions he would be but did the first employer wouldn't be liable for both or i'm sorry that the employer wouldn't be liable for employers sponsible instead of creating a completely flipped position stance or not instead of the current standard which is that part has to prove that there is absolutely no connection between a subsequent condition and and or original accident  condition the commission can look to factor second analyze whether or not the subsequent employer's accident is responsible or ours namely whether the symptoms change diagnostic change freeman recommendations change ability to work change i suppose  see you a hypothetical where what we're doing well but this is how and then i would agree with you based on the present case law right but my my argument is if this person had a preexisting leg problem that was not work related they go to work for a  that he believed his surgery failed thank you testified that even that he had not released mr hamm from care as of yet and i assume that's because he knows that on returning to work or daily activities that mr hamm is likely he's likely to find out whether or not mr hand is injured you asked before you are if there are underlying policy reasons for your previous decisions and i believe that is simply the fact that we do not know as a as a person goes on surgeries do fail there are intervening accidents there are  reasons why we hold the employer responsible from the very beginning and it's because we do not now at the time he has read very least in my mind or not released in this case know and it would be unfair to let the employer off the hook for something that goes back to the original surgery and i believe the court says the surgery failed due to a new likely wouldn't have been able to argue in their defense that bug or this prior work accident this subsequent one would never occur because it's not that's not a valid argument to argue that this this was not an intervening x you would be alleging that these are new accidents while working for hay calls and file and you have a case for benefits and mr ham would have no recourse against our because he did he'd settle this case and that's why we think that the intervening accident analysis in the context of subsequent work related accident has a causation standard that's inconsistent with the standard using preexisting the generative conditions cases such as something is are superseding intervene in the absence of superseding intervening quote one of two things happen either you get stuck with both and if you're the first one to go to trial or you're advocating for abortion orphans not one though i agree with you i think well what we are advocating for is that we are not on the hook for t t d benefits and medical benefits after the subsequent intervening accidents but there would still be be a determination as a permanent partial disability against our for the initial