get a sense of chronology here which i think may be important how we handle it is your contention so i gather that in two thousand and ten there was you were going through an administrative hearing process and would and the trial experienced history of seizures and as a consequence of that he's gone to a out of school placement and remains there it would appear that it's because of the from your point of view the failure to imp he experienced these medical events which are the cause you allege of the damages that he experience in the parents experience is that if that's an accurate factual account of the sequence by claim analysis and you do that so that these non ideate based claims the non claims are not swept up with claims that would otherwise not be subject to the exhaustion requirement and our position is if you applied the test as suggested by the u s supreme court and fought by that in this case with respect to the denial of this service dog that claim survives because it didn't need to be exhausted for two because it first if another student in the school who wasn't under and i eat pig was denied access to his or her service starred in violation of section fifty five of four that student would not be required to go through an administrative process before accessing the court secondly if nullify the allegations of the complaint as a whole because even in the claim by claim analysis those allegations have to in i understand it from the complaint isn't the denial of a service dog it's the denial of the service the service dog under the i eat pete that's the way the complaint has tied these together a violation exists stead and we haven't engaged or not completed him we didn't make an effort to avoid any reference to e p or the child status is having separate needs we have other claims that are time to those with respect to did a where you are either said that decision emphasized the importance of the administratively process in cases in which the propriety of a town's actions in carrying out its educational obligations to students with special needs  educators can't really say much about i mean are you going to affect contending that we're now dealing with a medical given your claims for damages were dealing with a medical causation belforest claim this is a question of whether given this child's fragile status his serious needs the need for his service start in relation to his potential exposure to a seizure condition which could be life threatening but all of those things came into play the denial of the service dog resulted in on that day the first day he showed up for class under those circumstances he had his first ever my startling tonic clonic seizure he proceeded to have developing that that would be a burden has nothing to do with whether his eye e p was appropriate and what it happened here was the e p that was agreed upon was in continuing in force in effect yes to parents in an effort to try to do what was right for their son to get him the best possible sort of services we want it to be in the e p but they didn't need to have it in the ip he had a right to have that dog with him because he was he had the medical necessity for it he had the appropriate certification town precluded that they wanted the parents to for example assume liability for anything that happened to the dogs they had to acquire meant for handlers that wouldn't have been in a place car for someone with out an eye e p so they treated him differently than the past if you're not talking about an ending the at u p if you're talking about a claim for monetary damages under section five go forward based on the deprivation of the dog independent of any i do a faith issues then that hearing officer would ability to address something because that's not education based relief and so put it outside of the faith cases it puts it outside of furniture where the concern was that a parent could wait until the child had graduated and then  seek damages based on the denial of educational services and the court there said well that doesn't make sense because that child would be entitled to some sort of compensatory damages but in relation to educational services not personal injury resulting from iraq or deprivation of this service dog under section five a for well the cheater the minister the process ended in two thousand  should be applied only to the teachings of fraud so it's not the first question we have to determine is whether or not that  well i think the issues with the service doc specifically started in two thousand clearly in two thousand and twelve when the school committee was attempting to work with parents and attempting to develop a policy that the parents were not pleased with and i think at that time that could have been an appropriate time to take their grievance to that the s c a to have that to have that remedied and address of two thousand and twelve the school committee had tried to put together a policy in regard to the handler the parents were not satisfied with that policy and opted not to agree to it not to sign it and so whether an appropriate decision has been made and i can't figure out what that would look like in this case since it's going to be medical well i think what it would look like is at the time that these grievances were occurring did there need to be a red amendment to die for the service dog as requested by the parents did there were they implementing the i p properly was the summer program that extended school year program in two thousand and twelve proper and accordance with the i see that was in place at the time because it's it's these claims that he was not receiving the proper services at the schools are you saying that the hearing officer making proximate cause the german says i don't understand what that would look like well i think it's the expert opinions of those at the b s a that b s yes that would be able to to determine and give the court or hearing court guidance as to whether the district was in compliance with that idea  word in other words the hearing officer would work in choir into what with the school when when the service to log amendment to the i eat p was requested in refused was address the medical issues that are at the heart of their complaint why should they go through an administrative process when it can't in any useful way address the medical causation issue the sort of the case so how do you respond to that a duly burdensome point that i think they're that they're making yes incan that point i think it's appropriate services with the faith with the surface and so i think that exhaustion would not have been overly burdensome when really the basis of these medical unfortunate medical they've given two thousand and fourteen they reach a satisfactory agreement on the out of school placement there's no complaint about this this is all what could i think of it i administrative process it's intended to try to reach a mutually satisfactory solution what is an appropriate i p that's largely what it's about that's not what's at issue anymore everybody is satisfied with the child's placement now this is about what happened in the past what caused these medical incidents yes they may have something to do with deficiencies media p but they're not trying to get a new were worried about in frasier is that how you see it that's correct i think that it's very problematic and that in a case like this yes there was a settlement reached between between the parties but in other cases that going forward that might not be the case and so it allows plaintiffs going forward to circumvent the e s e a processes and just say well then i'm going to go right to court school system to reach an accommodation for the child and i and that has worked out except it took two years and so in that time i think that the service talent into into the eighties school day in and early two thousand and twelve which is why the school committee was developing attempting to develop a policy for the handler and they allowed the service  john's condition deteriorated that's correct but i think when there when the claims are being based on the fact that the dog was denied that the island he was not in then that because it was the dog was allowed to come to school with him on these injuries occurred because you didn't give me the give me the specific time mind you are saying the ministry that ministry of remedies were not exhausted and i would say beginning they were not satisfied with better d d had was receiving the programs he was supposed to whether specific individuals were appropriately trained to provide him with the services required  think that it's not that i think that it's anyone who needed to bring a service animal rather they have an ip or not into a school environment would need to have some sort of a permission from the from the district to do so additionally i think that it could have been very beneficial to the court to have some sort of a record as to whether d d was actually denied access to to the fate that was to be provided to him by the failure to provide this reasonable accommodation whether he needed it for it to receive the state and we don't have a record as to whether that's the  paid thirty five of the record where it says he was denied a day and so i would ask that this court uphold the district court's decision very briefly your honour's this isn't a situation where the parents sat back and waited to file a claim for damages knowing that they had the right to seek relief before the time that they did so they brought the claim after their child had been injured the child got the service dog in the late fall of two thousand and eleven discussions took place with respect to how he would be included in the child's school day subsequently while those things were being worked out the the position that the child could not bring that dog into school without the parents agreeing to terms that were inconsistent with his rights under section five all four including as i referenced earlier i requirement that the parents signed an assumption of liability for any harm caused by the dog as well as any if the dog will in the cockpit those things are inconsistent with his rights under section five zero four the parents didn't want to comply with that request for permission and some sort of a permission and that was within their rights with respect if you tell any argument i appreciate and understand and certainly don't suggest in any way that frazier  overworld that it should somehow be altered to expand the scope of claims that aren't subject to exhaustion beyond the very limited proposal that we're putting forward today and respectfully request that the court give appear for a pain expert and prove a case trying to prove a case that the idea that has no bearing on the separate distinct legal factual medical has ation issues that the five all four claim require would require them to prove and in this federal court