or you face did you have any questions just say i just disconnect i think i i think i understand the point i think while we make sure your say in the point is your point that the answer is yes and no your honor we're our from a health care provision standpoint is a different era are not the players and the health care field that we use the word our revolves around the construction of the old age oh act with the whole health care services and neither of which are enforcing this one neither of which are relevant at this point and more importantly ok thank you this issue did what the circuit court did hear and that is look at the legislative history of this particular act and what we learned of the court too and what we found was that the exact thing that the the how much is looking for here had been considered by the legislature the two thousand and twelve and so what there was an amendment that was proposed house bill fifty eight twenty three you know amendment it also was that health care provider would be limited in whatever lean action they took to the amount they behave can go sheeted with either insurance company or that medicare or medicaid or some other public pay or at agreed to pay them that would essentially  those who had no ability to pay is a misreading of the act is now with the act says and it's not what the supreme court said in the case that he cited there is no such limitation written into the air there were gal christie clinic nothing they paid christie nothing because they had a contract to pay a per patient amount for any member who was a member of the h m o so christy was representative was alleging fraud and this court found that the physicians lean act allowed the physicians to attach a lien on the southern one itself this court considered the case of cited by the opponents here of the and c versus a so the wrongdoer should get the benefit of the fact that one of the that the injured party which is of insurance the other side of the equation was that the patient should receive a windfall from seeking situation we have this course of treatment or golomb we have a statute that provides a right this court recognized where that legislature considered exactly what you how much was asked for and rejected there's of issue that the circuit court were not appropriate there is no argument here that but i would just say the deficiencies brought up by the circuit court were not even addressed in the brief so those have been waived there's arguments about certain clauses of blue cross and blue shield agreement with my client none of those wrong point the only one that might come close is paragraph three a which is an indemnity provision this is this indemni clients there's a contention that there is i think the circuit court found that all that the opponent had done was fall of breach of contract claim that that was not enough there is no allegation of deception  that there's extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of my client what my client did was send a letter out indicating that they were seeking recovery from the settlement find the circuit court of correctly found that was not the prolonged hounding or extreme measures that are called for to rise to the level of outrageous conduct in a collection action so in summary or any any provision there in that said also christie clinic or a care provider has a right as well there's no it's true that's true there's there's no indicate there's no no reference in the blue cross blue shield agreement that gives two care provider a right against third party which are not party to that because christie didn't have a pretty clinic did not have any anything in their agreement with the h m o that said we preserve our rights so and that's why this case is on they had they refined it some but not all that so they did keep sob what they received was payment pursuant to their written there's no doubt there's never a council in the case that what distinguishes this case from the other cases from the first district that amber case but the legislative history is completely irrelevant and so is the act itself i have in this case has never allege or art that dr larry lee and his practice doesn't have w us but he's also got the right by contract to waive those legal rights which he did the wording in the blue cross blue shield provider going up which contains his signature that wording couldn't be brought up in terms of releasing any crimes against the patient the