company i would respectfully submit that the commission's decision to through the settlement contracts in cases six w c three four and zero six w c seventy four a should be vacated that  and relative to the germane facts the claimant sustained three separate injuries while working for the same employer each injury was covered under separate insurance policy so it first injury on june fourteenth of two thousand and three involving the claim older then we have an injury and september twenty third of two thousand and by involving his lap and rights holders and then we have a third injury on june sixteenth of two thousand and eight involving his neck and his lower back all the cases  consolidated before arbitrator crown on march second two thousand and nine for the purposes of hearing on may twenty fifth two thousand and twelve the claimant filed a motion to sever the two earlier cases from the bed the latest filing alleging that the injuries were distinct and that you wish to perceive a settlement on the first two injuries the employer objected and probably sponsor and june fourteenth of two thousand and twelve on the grounds that until a full ok so i think subject matter jurisdiction is always an issue before this court whether it anytime and i believe that they lacked the record which requisite subject matter jurisdiction because the claimant filed a petition forward you found one on july nineteenth of two thousand and twelve and at that time he marked on the petition for review requests for oral argument in section  argument is requested that it must go before all three commissioners and therefore commissioner lamm board did not have jurisdiction to act by himself on the settlement the bottom line if you can't have a full way that everything but it's a tough issue to be i mean it's a tough position to be and what i what i really am saying is i don't believe that the commission had authority to prove this that contested some contact or did try to pull out the record when i when i took over this case but it was already out to your honor's so i couldn't access the records so i'm going from the brief in the table context on on the record and there in the table context on the record they do but i try my best to see if your questions leave your you with a smile that i'm being mindful of the fact that that the record on appeal may not have been as complete as it should have been and potentially should have been supplemented i believe that the commission did not have a commission i mean the mission and hearing before the commissioner lambourn was attended by representatives on all three cases all representatives of levy and a full hearing was held in front of arbitrator lamm board in chambers where he discussed all the merits of the cases asked on one of the earlier cases happened is when arbitrator cronin rejected the settlement contract as is common practice all three of us walked over to the clerk for the science case to the commission together and the committee she rolled her little wheel and it themselves all three of us want over to the clerk with arbitrator groaning because he held the contracts in hand and he handed those contracts to the beloved betsy that we all know over at the counter and that she took the contracts assigned us to lambourn  situation where we've been moved from an arbitrator to a commissioner who you employ may reply it also says on seventy seven point thirty where there contested petitions for a lump sum settlement which this clearly was not there was a petition shall be docketed and separate hearing the same manner as the titians or reveal and so i would