that she is currently pursuing in which she says my inability to recover from a personal injury damages resulted from my tourney still here twenty five actually she's right that's for me not the second lawsuit hundred fifty thousand dollars and were combative fits in connection with the workman's compensation claim so to answer the first question has been raised maybe the first question was could there be a double recovery with illegal not practice case no there cannot be a double recovery because the legal malpractise case and full disclosure yes i'm the attorney who prosecuted who filed a complaint legal practice if there if this case  recover those months and therefore the legal not practice case becomes dismissed moot because you cannot pursue a legal malpractise case unless you have damages and if you are a title to recover here against  complaint they sought to add additional damages always damages so we all now know economic damages pain and suffering loss of enjoyment of l these are not elements of subrogation the trial court heard an argument from pepper instruction never come soon says you cannot allow a an in excess of their suburb ation rights was there any appeal taken from them not that decision stands today it's a first it's never been attacked is that eight hundred fifty thousand dollars is our money or the whip because we believe according to the contract between the two parties to count the office came to the conclusion that eight hundred fifty thousand dollars is just the workman's compensation and i believe the reason why we pursue this is that redemption their way to excess of eight hundred fifty thousand dollars that doesn't come anywhere near or be she's a permanent and totally urgant but aren't they somewhat of a red herring in this case as to whether or not risk judicata principles apply to your initial claim being defeated by the spiritual limitations i mean it seems like we're down a different road because her here is talking about control and you saying they don't really represent their interests but if you're out for stare at your limitations then what's wrong with them is to shoes argument that says your remedy is legal mal and all i'm asking this who gets to prosecute that part of the case because that part he's an heiress right to pursue and access which they have not done they settle and for remedy is a legal malpractise case and presumably on the double recovery issue the damages would be mitigated by whatever recovery you did get in the interim case if i don't if i don't if if can and are now filed or continue on in this lawsuit if this court says well i'm going to let the intervention statute to answer them there's no statute of limitations there's a time  this issue to intervention i agree that's been returned to the trial court to determine well is it time you know should you have moved didn't burly and we can address that belief you know in the circuit or but the of pursuing that matter on on behalf of her and protecting your interests i think we that might be able to another decision in circuit court for determination of whether he's got a conflict but from observation of the settlement agreement for which teresa was not involved and has received no money and they agreed that they were going to pay edwards compensation eight hundred more than eight hundred fifty thousand dollars and they settle for less than the eight hundred fifty thousand dollars so do i think that you know it's reasonable to conclude that they are the qualified party to pursue the n r o right  everybody agrees so now who gets to pursue this is that case dead in pepper and an ira reach a settlement agreement and dispose of those rights i say that teresa should have been given the right to intervene and then protect those things and the statue of liberty and the rest of the country without a fight she's only their protector rights is is your position that the right that she may have over your claiming only comes about because up in my view is that they were entitled to when i wasn't allowed to intervene and they were able to carry on i had no opportunity to pursue them had ready for i wasn't given that opportunity  counsel said what if there had been but if there had never been a two thousand and fifteen personal injury but there was and that's the point there was a personal injury it was untimely it was dismissed it was an adjudication on the merit says how is it that an article make its claim and make its claim because it timely filed its statutory segregation and it can ask for benefits beyond compensation benefits paid that's the law the speculation as to what the eventual compensation case will be worth is irrelevant we don't know as we stand here with the settlement that pepper paid and wheatley reimbursed and time