a for that purpose are on maintaining i think has to be read an injunction with that reciting all the parties make to each other at the very top of the contract further your honor on the  about wrong when requested and i think if you throw out all together and i hate to refer to justice douglas as a number of factors but i think all of that together sort of creates a reasonable understanding on ross's part have a very very different case than what we have here today because then the seven point five obligation would have kicked in press would have had the obligation to make that determination but the record is clear that never happened and i think that there is a that determination sort of setting aside the question of whether they really did maybe not but they say that they have no obligation i think in saying that even though her their case was as you have to give credence to every piece of the contract they are essentially taking white out and taking out that when requested one they're asking the court to do that they're asking the court to say that there is not a dichotomy as to how at the station is made based on whether is makes a request or not they're saying just flat out across the board we have no obligation and i don't think that that is supported by the language of the contract of h g h argues that rest has an obligation to of dialogue back and forth that says how do we make this you know it's up to you you make the call they never reached that point in mr stevens and as i said before the c e o clearly says of that contract provision me if we need information if we want to decision it's our community it's our burden to pick up the phone and ask for the circuit court in its order says that it's almost a directive from cross as to who is  obligation to do anything but translate information that's on one is to another and considering the rest paid for their expertise i don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of conf says well if h g h never supplied eligibility information across that means that they have had no obligation to do so means they didn't do so in this case i don't know if you can reach that interpretation of every best that last that clearly shows that cross was not in the practice and that's not disputed ross was not in the practice of making those decisions they relied on each speech to do so thank you your honor i've never gotten to the negligence issue i would make a couple of very brief points first of all one of the arguments is that there is no cause of action there's no cross feel here that issue is not properly before the court that issue was decided by the relying on nothing more than a timeline without even interviewing his own people who have been talking with h c a excuse me with mutual before he then sends this letter which contradicts everybody and he testified in  negligent however h t h ignores the idea as you know that there was negligence in the initial in a moment decision the initial eligibility determination the congregation case which nor is there any testimony that she ever relied on the d c age develop check her decision is so you know the only conclusion from the evidence to me is that basically limited his negligence analysis to the idea that the only duty that h g h had would be found within the contract that's not what the congregational case says on the count you can have a negligence out with patients you can find a duty outside of a contract in a situation like this when one party is so clearly relying on the other to provide a professional type service that you w there's enough of a disparity in the knowledge and understanding the undertakings of the parties to say that the congregation type doctrine applies you know and that was an almost supreme court case and they are that exception not mor on the circuit court you know look at this and every element of his misrepresentation analysis starts with the faulty assumption that h c a just had no duty and if they had a duty they didn't  understanding there between her and