compensation and not a penalty under the statute benefits review board held that was compensation and the charity or did not cross appeal that issue and even if it had cross appeal that it would have a very very steep uphill battle based on this court's opinion and try hard versus mattson terminals which held that compensate benefits under section fourteen as a companion statute or compensation and not a penalty the other thing i want to make a point on this is that all of that case that i'm aware of under the law surely harbor workers compensation act bears interest from the date the compensation is due another words pre judgment interest and this court has actually been a leader and assessing an interest i'm past due compensation both on temporary disability benefits section fourteen f benefits medical benefits as well as birds compensation following a o'jays decision and the compensation they overpaid i think it's four days of compensation exceeds the amount of interest that mister roberts would be entitled to  prevails on this case and oregon is that therefore he's not going to get anything the issue is moot and a couple of arguments on that number one he is going to get something because he still has modification rights under section twenty two dollars of the longshore act and the credit reducing the credit would give him further opportunity for benefits under that secondly  that right that's correct they did they did assert that before the benefits review board before entering the reason the board were filed i believe you're correct the why his retirement and the benefits review board had held that the longshoremen were shipyard worker can't be after oral argument and i think the appeal involved fifteen or twenty thousand dollars and benefits after the oral argument apparently didn't go very well for the insurance carrier the insurance carrier paid the benefits to mr moody and argued that the appeal was moved and the th circuit held it's not moot because the benefits review board got it wrong benefits they didn't intend to pay the benefits they inadvertently overpaid mr roberts and therefore the but they're still arguing he's not he's not going to get anything and therefore  administering the act and making sure that the courts correctly interpret it and the director has argued in this case that the your parole issue was incorrectly interpreted by the benefits review board and they  i think the i don't think there's anything specific but i think the director has a role in administering the act and if the director doesn't think it's correctly interpreted i think the directory has the standing to position let's say that instead of this overpayment having occurred back when you and other lawyer had the exchange or the fuel really got off the ground the boy says listen this we're talking about eight hundred dollars you know we'll  i think the issues important doesn't really help in this case a lot of times they're just not going to be a whole lot to fight about yes you could have disagreements as to the percentage of disability or whatnot but there's a schedule that sets out how much of the person is supposed to pay and it based on what the prior lose so in the vast majority of cases it seems as though actually pretty much both sides are going to agree on this is what but in those cases where it's not there there is room for disagreement that's what i say then it's not as though the lawyers just left  question to the board and that argument failed at the board so the amount at issue now is actually less one hundred and forty three dollars thirty three cents we identified an  completed and notified him that we were unequivocally waving at overpayment and that there was therefore no financial amount at issue and mr ebbers had no financial stake in this claims of two thousand  incorrect there's no precedent establishing the requirement for a formal compensation order and frankly it directly contradicts the supreme court's statements of roberts the supreme court made it clear that voluntary resolution of claims under voluntary compensation and informal dispute resolution mandating that any voluntary payment from the employer or any voluntary waiver be accompanied by a formal compensation order which generate needless litigation benefits is the same as any other disability benefits under the act the issue of the moat ness there's there's no question that the board is going to continue to wait here applied it would apply from the time that the th compensation was due and not post and not as opposed to judge me issue and the board just came up with this decision on their own when i asked for reconsideration and the employer if they wanted to resolve this case could have joined in and said that the board got it wrong and it should should modify its decision if they wanted to probably could have we could have resolved this easily before the board and the issue with not reoccur and it would be and it would never have gotten to this court i don't think sample is on point at all sample involved a unique question that  involved mr sample only and he did not involve a situation that was likely to recur to anybody and the director was not involved in that case i don't have anything further to add unless the court has questions