know i i don't disagree with that but it's it's it's to draw the the conclusion that it's worth ten million dollars that i think is more of a stretch well we in this case  argue that you presented adequately for both st sets of damages but that you didn't present adequately for any additional damages the server the  level of operations and other things that happened after the request and responses as well we provided the medical records and the claims that existed at the time it is not uncommon in a case like  line future conditions are diagnosed and future treatments are given if you accept the government's argument a case a case could never be filed as long as this continuing ongoing and future treatments and conditions are diagnosed down the line we believe that we provided it adequately and sufficiently stated also your answer to the ten million dollars claim which is of course absurd but not uncommon towards things that people put in planes which have nothing to do what is really there but that you put that in because you don't really know what's going to happen afterwards and you want to protect yourself from it well let me answer that follows the resupply within the six month period of time frame the legal standard for adequate resentment before it now in romulus this court held that a notice of claim filed pursuant to the f t c i must provide enough information to permit the agency to conduct an investigation and to estimate the claims where now what is a knopf is always going to depend on the claim there's no there's no question that there was an accident right he was hit by the trough in the postal service out there investigating that from the beginning right that's right you're on are you know them and so the only question really is well there would be a question about contributory negligence i suppose but otherwise but the principle question is the continuing treatment additional surgeries additional damages perhaps i mean how do you expect the claimant to present all of that with the s f ninety five some more detail than others but for example it listed some but the market is such that enough for big government to do its investigation i mean when somebody has an accident you don't know everything they of bills but what do you expect we'll hear your honor there was a list of some injuries with no medical records attached to the s f ninety five dollars what soever so we are left with  that some certain for ten million dollars and  it and it seems to me that the district court was very upset by the claim of ten million dollars when evidence it was brought in to just the initial injury six five thousand dollars possible over ones but a long way but isn't that what happens in every single torts claim that they put in the very large amount because they don't know what's going to happen afterwards and also because it's dramatic but rather silly but they do that in every torts case and if we were to say that because they put in a claim that is beyond what they have actually presented they can go on and make their case it would mean that virtually every case was against the government would be out of cour i mean that i will say that in this case though it was not just that there were injuries listed on the s up ninety five it was that the claimant himself continuously represented to the postal service that he was engaged in ongoing treatment had been hospitalized in just december which was a few weeks after well or at least you know what so what's the problem with that i mean how is how does that leave you unable to investigate the issue is that there there is no information given to the postal service as to what that hospitalization was but we're well you know we know what the postal service wait a minute when it seems to me you're really asking us to rewrite the statute to a require not simply notice  and that's not what it requires now i think you agreed with judge chin this isn't a case where somebody says i was injured and there's no information about how it ha we're not in a situation where someone is coming up with a multi million dollar claim and no one has a clue what happened to it seems to me that you've got enough to investigate and doesn't your investigation entitle you to ask the plaintiffs for more evidence as it develops and then to argue if he doesn't produce it then he's far from claiming it later on but you're not in a position where you can't investigate help me out here well your honor i believe the postal service has had begun its investigation and based on the based on the claimants representations in correspondence that followed the s s ninety five dollars that you know he was seeking additional treatment or had already undergone additional treatment that was merely listed on the s s ninety five did list the hospitalization you know their stuff ninety five had thirteen letters from the hospital hospitals attached to it there were bills i mean when someone says my demand is ten million dollars it's not yes or no you know when at best it seems to me it goes to truth and what is the value but that's something that's always subject to negotiation well i think the standard that we have  deeper issue here the object of the for federal tort claims act was to put the government in the same situation basically substantively as  individual defendants when the injury is one that is not one a matter of discretion but he's simply but thing that ordinary defendants and the idea is that other  companies compete with the government in this like federal express and so on will not be disadvantaged so that the government gets an advantage when it's competing in an ordinary business it makes perfectly law asked that enough be made given so that negotiations about settlement can be made but if we go down your line and require all of these things a close shortness of time we create a situation where practically plaintiffs cannot bring suits against the government and what we're doing is violating the whole intent of the statute to make but government be request but that doesn't mean that the absence of that means no court sure any defendant in the situation who best these questions are perfectly reasonable ones right and in romulus and leave though the court had held that a simple request for a basic underlying medical documentation especially for treatment that had already been provided with a perfectly acceptable request under two thousand six hundred and seventy five without is temporary in this case like the court observation that the interviews appear not to be very serious distinguishable and the failure of the white the poor and his lawyer to respond for over two