decision or arbitration award i guess is the terminology in which the arbitrator concluded that no benefits no money was owing to the claimant belive in it and the federal district court basically confirmed the factual findings of the arbitrator but the federal district court bank aided the award on the basis that the arbitrator interpreted policies and procedures of the federal crap insurance corporation and that was the reasoning that he stated in his opinion for the vacation he had an opportunity to harvest his crop and he didn't and that bell been abandoned as corn crop by failing to timely harvest and in addition to that  at the crop his crop suffered additional damage beyond the insurance period specifically and june of two thousand and fifteen hurricane like storm as mr bell been described it leveled his corn crop and then he harvested in july one month later so for all of those reasons they arbitrator concluded that no benefits what is what is the language in the arbitration order that's in question that we need to focus on to determine whether the arbitrator did or did not make referenced to or interpret you could make to the fact that there were no production work changed and the arbitrator in assassin in essence accepted the appraisals without their production or chinks that that was according to judge personal interpreter the regulations and the procedures and the federal crap insurance corporation and so that was the basis for their vacation  there were no production and were cheats a chance to the appraisal and because there were no production worksheets and they were not sign judge par concluded that that was an interpretation that argument wasn't made to the arbitrator wasn't it was made for the st time when mr bell been filed his reply him correct but enough fairness your honor mr bell but i was arguing for attacking the validity of the appraisals and that was one of the reasons he was attacking  but that was a factual issue it was simply a factual issue in the oh no he argued to the arbitrator that he the appraisals weren't accurate or want to correct right arbitration decision right at the very end the way arbitrator stated that that was not the case that that was i'm convincing in that there was no motive on the part of the crab adjusters to do that and so the point i'm making your honor that was a factual issue that was a credibility issue they arbitrator like a jury listen to they testimony m to the testimony of the crop adjusters considered all of the evidence and decided whether mr belden's claim that the appraisals were a ballot or in ballard and decided that mr belin its claim was without merit he made a credibility decision a factual determination it wasn't a policy interpretation and so for that reason that's that's where a judge provide saw their demeanor and could determine whether their testimony made sense in view of all the other evidence or didn't make sense and their arbitrator concluded factually that mr further away from the deference that you are supposed to ascribe to an arbitration hard basically denotable so on one hand it's supposed to have extraordinary deference and on the other hand what happened is that judge pirro saw applied an independent standard in the words of mr  insurance guaranteed mr bollen brought his actual harvested production figures and then ryan hale brings fat incomplete appraisal worksheets obviously and it's and it's noted that at the arbitration mr the they are a traitor the other leg of his decision is that mr bobbin abandon his crotch i think that's a problem when i ask that this court reversed the district court because the arbitrator made a good practice determinations are different than factual interpretations of abandonment that's correct ok but in the case the case of failure to timely harvest is just a different situation because here's the problem you might ask yourself well why get thank you for getting to testify also it understand judge really you know my mom primary point the court would be that arbitration is a creature of contract and at the most but in the most basic sense this is just a contract arbitrator and a twenty nine tinka is the th circuit recently recognized that the crop ensure the federal crop insurance contract leaves very little decision making authority for the arbitrator that's the williamson farm be diversified insurance these kind of cases the contract does not allow the arbitrator to engage in policy interpretation to make good farming practice decisions at any time in any way the actual pastas if there isn't a question of interpretation or application of a specific policy procedure or provision in any way the arbitrator or the parties must request an interpretation from the federal crop insurance corporation if this court or decision was rendered by anybody arbitrator mediator judge based on a disputed provision in which there was a failure to request final agency determination or if i see interpretation the party may request f appraisals were inaccurate or irrelevant to me that is not an incorrect me if i'm wrong but that's not an interpretation question now it's argued that they weren't signed etc which was never argued to the end to the arbitrator and that that is somehow a policy needs interpretation by the f c i c yeah like what am i missing i would i would point you the producer's eye or culture insurance co what exactly would the f c c i c be asked to interpret the f c s a needs to decide whether or not these incomplete appraisal work sheets on file fields can be it used to extrapolate a production estimate across seventeen injured farms in south dakota similar to the car to study this case in cars davis the insurance company set some deadlines for producing documents that were not found in the policy and the question for there was an arbitrator denied to climb on the anything else in the case doesn't that take care of everything else in the case and resolve this case no it does not because i was a should sort of because to get to that point he had to make a good farming practices terminations which was out of his scope of the already so he'd to get there he leaps over and misses the fact that there has to be a determination it obviously have been a good farming practice harvest in march i'm out it and also of the law is clear it doesn't matter if there was one foundation of this policy in these regulations strictly no deviations i would say that i should also point out that it it's been argued that is that there were additional causes of loss that may have contributed and that brings up a really good question because if they had done the production work sheets there would be a little hormone there where they could say they could apportion insured and uninsured losses but their prices were judges the insurance company botched this case and i didn't do the price and now they want to rely on documents that are outside the procedure the the arbitrator should have said hey we've got a problem here and i they didn't have a price reduction he didn't have a prize so he decided the arbitrator departed from the contract that's what makes vegas you're appropriate he departed from the terms of the policy and he said well these appraisals and these appraisal work sheets on five out of seventeen contract and that's one that's properly vacated and that's the situation i believe we we find ourselves in today really it's not a standard review case and not in the center views clear it's a contract if the arbitrator did something he wasn't supposed to be part of the contract it can be vacated by the district court i would ask you to farm on the on the bike that you're on the price of production issue and reverse on the fact that that the district court said no good farming practices she was involved got his corone out he took his corn out during the insurance period and after the insurance period in march and there was no one other than mr babbin who testified that he could not get  sister those are the facts that were presented to the arbitrator and mr ballard brought up the fact that there was an extension for him to get his craps out and there was rain and hail granted an extension and his neighbor got his corn out in march yeah on the insurance period mr ballen chose not to harvest until july so however you look at it the facts are he could have gotten his corn out and chose not to do it for whatever reason and this whole issue about appraisals there is nothing i have not seen any may not have been conducted according to standards and so if regard to that they are betrayed or has the liberty has the authority to decide how much weight he wants to put on the appraisals that doesn't disallow that doesn't that doesn't dismiss those appraisals there's nothing that says that anywhere and there i would trader has the authority as a fact could have gotten a score now and he didn't get his car now he could have gotten it out during the insurance period and could have gotten that out after the surance period apparently everybody  the corn out there were no other claims and this neighbor got the crime now and so i'm not even sure that the fact finder even had to get to the issue of the appraisals but he did and he noted that