long standing rule of law that arbitration agreements must be enforced in accordance with their terms as written and it also established new rules of wall that prohibit arbitrator and judicially manufactured consent to class arbitration  guise of contract construction principles that are inconsistent with the f a i wasn't this close and worse no your honor it wasn't it was actually the arbitrators reformulation of the party's arbitration clause and reliance on the ground specifically in expressing prescribed by the supreme court's decision and so we'll send that lead to the result that the arbitrator was reached which was now are you advocating for great line rule if the arbitration clause class sanctions i mean we would have to say that the arbitrators interpretation is totally totally irrational that's correct that is the standard that arbitrator's ruling would have to be totally irrational order to justify vacate or hears it and the reason why  for dispute so on pages forty one through forty two of the appendix in the modified award the arbitrator said the clause is not at all silent it plainly says no civil action and all such disputes are to go to arbitra was my task to construe that clause all i found in what again means all without exception the entire universe of actions that could possibly have been brought in any court necessarily including class actions your honour's the parties here agreed to arbitrate any dispute arising under this agreement they did not agree to arbitrate any action and the arbitrators rewriting of the parties cause fundamentally changed the meaning of that clause and that is the only way in which he was able to reach the conclusion he did well i think that in short i would say that the second circuit was incorrect in its reason but i think that the primary thrust of the decision rests on the standard of review and the second circuit actually stated that if the arbitrator is authorized to reach an issue that's sufficient you cannot vacate an award where the arbitrator was authorized but here in the third circuit and least you have this irrationality standard that must be applied now i could  expressed in their agreements because the arbitrate is the wording to wives from the parties consent and the parties agreement he is not free to go outside of that and to try and find the best policy for instance to be again point to the arbitrators award itself which makes clear that he was in fact relying on his own conception of sound policy at the appendix on page forty he says that class actions in quarter absolutely prohibited by the first part issue of substantive arbiter billeted the scope of disputes that are subject to arbitration which is any dispute are rising under this agreement is not the same as the process or the rule or procedure is that we're going to be applied in arbitration and the arbitrators morning your honor as if it please the court i represent dr sutter the appellee let me first deal with the issue regarding silence and that's been raised by your honors the inception of this matter when it began as a litigation in the superior court dr sutter has argued that class arbitration was permitted if the arbitration clause we argued in the alternative before judge bernstein and i could cite to the record on page appendix page one twenty two and then one each to where we argued and if i could just pull this off or second we had argued at one twenty two that you know if the court disagrees with the pla transcript i specifically said to judge bernstein in our colloquy you're on our place made an alternative argument and i submit this court does have jurisdiction to decide the issue of class wide arbitration ultimately judge bernstein didn't or to find expressly class arbitration here the arbitrator barrett after deciding that it was not the kind of agreement as the silence that we had installed wilson was required to interpret the agreement and he did so and he looked at the wording he looked at what the clause allowed for it whether help brought it was how live it is he looked at the wording essentially fundamental contracts want to one and he interpreted that the language similar to the jockey case and in the second circuit which the district court decision was so heavily relied upon by oxford before he got overturned that this clause permitted and in our case opinion of this circuit he made very clear that it's the arbitrator and not the court that should be deciding that issue back in two thousand and two i'd argue that the state court judge should decide it but  it should have been the judge or the option to make that decision because given the procedural posture of this case now this is up on appeal and i'm not going to take up my time or the or the court's time in citing the bedrock principles that this court follows in this circuit follows in terms of looking at an arbitrator's decision so if the court were now suddenly gonna decide well we should be the ones making the decision on the class arbitration you would have to find that the arbitrator was irrational and his decision was was so rational that that that it's going to have to be thrown out was there it agreement that the arbitrator was to return the significance and me this cause and it's my answer is twofold number one with your of judge bernstein directing the arbitrator to decide this issue those orders are in the appendix and number two the arbitrator requested the parties positions at the time issue and he did and it did no go looking at still nielsen so all along the arbitrator did exactly what the parties authorized him to do and he followed the law he interpreted the law and we all know the standard that even if just assume because there's an arbitration provision that for policy reasons or any reason other then the intent of the parties based on the contract for tat should be the basis to determine that class arbitration should go forward it must be based on the interpretation of the parties of the contract as met by the parties and that's what arbitrate a barrett did here it's far as archer's arguments that it's a pretext  all when he says he didn't rely on public policy or he didn't rely upon a lack of an expressed probation the the opinion speaks for itself could you help me out just getting a little bit more background what what  but i just want to get a little more background on this this action like a number of class actions that i've been involved with this class counsel against a man of candor industry concern new jersey physicians that are seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief essentially on two grounds pay us our claims promptly and also pay them correctly and don't employ arbitrary code processing policies that change the codes that are submitted by the physicians so you pay us less like if we provide service x don't change the code and say we provided year and we've been up to the third circuit now twice and the case which i'm hopeful if this court rules in dr site is favorable continue to final resolution i would like to points and this court should not disturb chief judge brown's opinion nor should it disturb the opinion of the arbitrator barry this court must resist toppling the fundamental principles that have been in place here for decades in terms of how an arbitrator's award should be reviewed and i will reiterate that  a bright line rule and i do believe when push comes to shove we boil it down oxford is looking for a bright line rule if the bright line rule was it must expressly say class arbitration some magic words not only did the supreme court modifies any dispute from the first part of the clause not civil action and so that is a very important point to emphasize here because the f a a got its funded fundamental tenet of f a a law is that you were supposed to  force the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms province of coeur it's obviously under the admittedly deferential standard to review the political to make decisions about whether or not there was an end ambiguity at this point in fact both parties sutter and oscar agreed that the  was silent there's no question about that it certainly embodied in the record the arbitrator however it is modified award said that it wasn't at all silent that enough itself cannot be cannot be found or why from the parties arbitrators was irrational and needed to be vacated the result in armstrong county memorial hospital versus united steel that was in march of two thousand and eleven seven that decision certainly a panel of this court found that that kind of rewriting of the party's agreements resulted in appropriate take it or the arbitrators failure to enforce the party's agreement really just did not it was not only a rational it also reflected the failure to enforce the essence of the party's agreement it was