Now, it is actually very clear when you look at the summary what the party who put this forward thinks the purpose is, but I want to explain why that is wrong. So the purpose is supposed to be because the actual acceptance of that claim, the re-injury claim, is going to affect what is called the experience rating. The experience rating is something that sets up the employer for a levy, and it is based on a calculation that involves the last three years of workplace injuries and it's a risk assessment. One of the things that goes into that assessment is how many days the employees have had off work. 