honor my name is tom ora this is a relatively simple case it is a contract case it's a contract case with no contract no bid contract very have an insurance policy they have an insurance policy that you agree to certain terms wed and then call clinic bills your church company and they get paid and there's testimony to call plate did get paid by blue cross blue shield ever presented that we've asked for we asked for no times and that's that's true up to the crowd transcript and our argument is it's not our job to prove that there is it a contract because the terms of that contract may have been mr kinney allows them to bill his insurance company and that is all they're going to get and call waves any additional protection or any additional claim you know i'm looking at your grief here testified in open court that they had it and the court the court even said the court said there's sufficient evidence to establish the contract existed the court said i copy of a signed authorization with regards to an implied contract the case was pretty clear if there is a written hand track which i guess if there is a contract then i would ask what are the terms of that contract if there's a written in fact what are the terms if there isn't a contract what with the terms and physician services which is called clinic association there's no debate that he made payments to call for his hospital services but you got to not  we've had several bit and made payments on those big well he made him it's there's no dispute that he made payments to call foundation hospital for the hospital services you have to understand there's two organizations  for the hospital i don't have an answer for that because they don't have the checks or anything here but very clearly there were actually three separate providers he had call there is a written signed agreement the first place to start he has let's see it because we asked for we found a motion to strike it because count three of the complaint didn't have an attached we signed contract and we're said if there is show up to us we just change the order and strike out reddens and say there's a contract between your client and prof when it matters so well the every single case that i know of there is a stock signature a picture called god or a patient financial responsibility and everybody signs what you can you can't get treatment unless she signed it and it that we've asked for and we never saw it in the west in the past the complaint now there's been reference to it and they say said they had it at the trial it's in the transcript but it was never shot and  court ruled stating to the effect that really what this case boils down to was a series and ongoing series type or contracts that when one party presented to the clinic and the clinic provided services that would be that the contract itself there is which i believe these were one of the two was where the judge made the ruling is that it's important obviously this is unjust enrichment this is a situation where one party benefits by the acts of another party and that the other party was not in rich wants to imply basically basically implying law and his it's a way to make it accurate so i believe it would be i believe it's an implied in fact contract based on the conduct of parts one party presenting association at the time that the services we provide there was testimony in the record from one of the witnesses from plaintiff i believe upon cross examination by the defendant  that there was insurance one point bill i don't know where the insurance was applied whether it was or was not it's not the hospital for sponsibility to track down why insurance wasn't wasn't clyde's defen it's always the patient's responsibility to make sure insurance pays for services oh well possible that if you send out a bill correct and you receive our name it's not your responsibility to acknowledge that or i believe everything that think i do not know if insurance was accepted and paid out by the patient's provider if it would have been paid out it would have been reflected in the billing state it lends me to believe that ancillary personnel base of those types of personnel who are not licensed perform them the services for which the corporation is licensed to do basically in this case it was a medical services provider so yes larry employees are not the basic ones are doctors not the ones providing the me services they basically run you know the day to day office work within the within the the corporation so thank god the employee told a guest who made the assignment which was an the initial complaint that is surface now but i think the case law is pretty clear in that if there is a written contract then this theory of implied in large doesn't exist meaning  in reference to me and asked to see it she says she has it's here it wasn't part of anything she provided to mr hill prior to but she did have authorization for copy of the authorization signed by mr mckinney authorizing carville is hospital were services for the insurance provider that's what the court said no except it wasn't part of the record in the court ever saw and are up with regards to it was a comment about patients sponsibility to pay the bill every patient in the in the country to go see and certainly in this state they got to sign informed consent there's no question that that that was soc we just have never seen with regards acquired marion or even implied