hand which is what i believe we should be looking specifically at the case at hand but to the facts that matter in every case of these firefighters whether it's here of course there's always an issue  district court found here and here's one statement by the district who are which would constitute a finding of fact that the firefighters who were never told anything about the results of these tests until seve correct correct and you maintain with respect to what i think was the may thirty one twenty sixteen dismissal that it was in called the results of their tests unquote and the suggestion was until months later if ever was i correct is that state inquiry by the district court that statement is contradict that this was a class action where you don't know who the members of the class into and usually greater down the road this was a complete on  and i have been a judge for thirty four years and you're suggesting that he shouldn't put anything in the way of evidence to refute these contentions but that we can't come to any conclusion  investigation of these individual claims that are rooms out of service you allege with the d c fire department crew hem been determined through investigation low for that consideration but then the record again is uncontroverted that all along of the plaintiffs admitted to things in their depositions number one that they had been tested for a number of years by the fire department talking almost inevitably at some point about cases been brought in various jurisdictions it's not necessarily limited at all and i don't think could be to just that particular court so i think the language of  sound discretion of the trial court and this is a unique situation and so i think it was appropriate for the court i think number one within the powers of the court i think it was completely appropriate for judge joyner to accept evidence regarding at least generally held these cases were being run and factual within this specific case i think that was important and when you look at his opinion by specifically about his opinion i'm sure you heard  merely puts that in to say this case developed the evidence that was before him showed that this case occurred in the same way that all these other cases occurred this was an anomaly and then and then we get to his final conclusion on page ten he goes back to the end of page nine goes back to what happened in this case and he talks about how there were there was no evidence that he finds that there was no free filing investigation done there was no interview with sarah he says told for years and years and years prior to their filing that they were hearing loss that they had hearing loss and that it was coming from the silence so as it is both sides agree  returns on that particular matter so i'm not as conversant on the facts of that one as i am on this but i believe it was not based on simply information it was coming from plaintiffs that could have been obtained it was just a completely different circumstance there as opposed to this what we have had they talked to their plaintiffs everything would have come out in the open i also think that the need for investigation as well that is fine why should we conclude that that's what was behind all of this