just to bring one thing as a point of clarification that may not have done justice to my client by failing to cite the correct terminology with one particular aspect of this case and in my brief with regards to the statement that was the crux of this case and page twenty six the that the weight of the statement was after the questions were asked of my client were asked in what is now a phrase that i've come to learn is the historic present and if you look at the question that the family have a way asks my client and she says i'm going back to your employer this statements taken three meetings three weeks after my client's  injury she asks him in the present tense you were from saudi and you work so you are full time he says correct however he's not working at that time she's asking this question question store present she then goes on and says all right and you work the night shift again in the present tense three weeks after his injury now to work for anyone else  again present tense the reason this becomes relevant i submit to you is because an employer on the law is responsible to compensate the injured poorly for a second job that he cannot perform at the same time it is working for the employer that caused the injury so your question is here your question or your posing test was an intentional misrepresentation or was it just a these not drawn to your office as a how do you explain that and he says it's dynamic he says it's a different time he's going to feel different pain but the bottom line is all of these things were available to the payment they're fully aware that you can work somewhere else why because they had him under surveillance they chose to make that payment there was no detriment to reliance anywhere in this case by having nothing in it they were doing there could have been sanctioned imposed upon injury because it's not clear as to when the payments made by the time the payments made in february these offer thirteen and a half weeks they pay in for six weeks six weeks of the new four we don't know they never know and if you look at them on the ways testimony she can tell you and they need to bring your attention when they start watching you know immediately i'm sorry they start watching them almost immediately within a couple weeks well within ten prevents pretty fast in the end they find things that they're having problems with who just say that at this point and so it doesn't really make any difference i mean why is it important which six weeks in a paying them for when it leaves with the i'll t your reference at this point although i thought it was faster than that within two weeks they started to assume a tick surveillance of his actions why is it important because at the point in time of the statements given he's not collecting and he was owed for thirteen and a half weeks but they only paid him for six that's why it becomes relevant if it was the other way there would be go i'm saying with regard to the to the fraudulent part to the fraudulent part there's no there's no time it could be said we're not going to pay that but they still chose to pay him and i submit to your honor's that the fact that they don't get the disease there is no request it's made for the restitution for any of the love the monies that are paid to my client and that he was entitled everything that he arch insurance correct answer for the claims that i handled the question yes answer yes that's what we're talking question that's what we're talking about answer yes i submit to your honor's that gallagher bess and i also submit that the monies for surveillance which would be done in a point in time before they take the statement are investigative costs and i would submit that even if the employer had authorized it an before the crime or excuse me the purported crime or the statement was given and as such that's not a comparable with regards to the independent medical examination i cited in the testimony where the adjuster said we would have ordered the independent medical five of the and it states that the defendant shall be ordered to pay quote unquote complete restitution complete restitution versus within the criminal code i'm the sentencing act which is a payment made from the victim and will make the victim whole or pay for all of the out pocket costs of the victim incurred as a result of the fans actions so case ready to go to the prosecutors aren't those costs should those costs be considered quote unquote complete restitution if not why not at the point in time that they chose to hire the surveillance they didn't know we're leaving so are you saying that they probably wouldn't hire surveillance whether or not it was going to be a criminal prosecution no i'm simply saying that every time if i decide to put  n a system that catches on someone on a photo breaking into my house that i can now recover the cost of that surveillance system or whatever just because i knew that somebody may break into my house i don't know if someone will but the fact is i thing way why i don't know they would have the not but i'm sure that they could use it in the worst come cases that look this guy says he's totally disabled he can't even do middle part time work but on the long he still entitle to work minimal part time work if it's like to me because i  wasn't working at that time the period of time which he had been working was in october and i submitted again for just finished my last thought with regards to the the attorney's fees that this is not something that that this statu reasonable doubt that the person that i hired in looking over the shoulder of what goes on in the criminal court does that sound like restitution to you response to somebodies questioning well you know maybe medicine wasn't working you know at the time you had to crawl to the bathroom but by the time i get to my office it was working so i believe that he had nine out of ten on a  before you had asked whether or not a true there's all this information is before the trial for the trial court given all the evidence not need necessarily be satisfied with respect to each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence to turn that from all the evidence he couldn't 's an argument that i know the defendant raises repeatedly in a letter for the first time i mean especially it's completely collateral to this case so i mean surely maybe payment should they not have made the payments i don't really think it matters i think the think might be a mistake or too important under the worker's comp statute know anything reasonably related to this would be anything the cost of the victim has to bear in order to bring this case you know from the statute seems to be a public policy basis we don't want the workman's compensation system to be manipulated absolute we don't want to be draining money it's a pain for actually injuries and you know for people who really can't work absolutely so if somebody is asking for money because they can't work but yet we find them working isn't  because the law says that if you can do some other kind of work the best the employer gets the credit best so his normal job pays twenty five dollars an hour and gets a job that pays him ten they got paid in the fift well that's what he was working exactly as sure as his story and he wants to be paid for full time and you worked the night shift again present tense well she knew he wasn't working for three weeks since he wasn't working for three weeks his education according to the records he had a high high school from a different country and the sentencing turns out to be syria but if i can answer  became a little bit and this is crucial to the case is because if he had a second job the employer has an obligation to pay him for that second job now the fact is that they did the survey and they found it doesn't obviate their responsibility to start to use this to prosecute my client and i submit to you the legislatures never intended as i submit to you in my mind never intending it to be taken to this level where they were looking to do was to prevent people  and that particular application doesn't oh for nothing to go into much detail as to what is going on with regards to the claim and how you make the calculations he could not work his regular job during the period of time it's listed on in form he was totally  be entitled to stuff at the end of the case in terms of any pain is that he made for temporary work and she said yes we're entitle to credit and we're entitled to a set up i just want to address one last thing with regard to