you know if they had an answer i didn't want to address that claim first because it seems so clear to me that we stated a claim basically i'm referring to tap six which is the second amended complaint and if you if you look at the allegations and i'd like to address those beginning at paragraph eight it's specifically alleged that there was a may twenty ninth letter of terminations which falsely stated only by advocating for patients protesting the denials and paragraph fifteen on may twenty ninth this is the crucial allegation prong it's alleged specifically that comment retaliated against agger wall for his prose tests of delays and denials of necessary medical tests and his advocacy of the right of his patients by terminating him and stating falsely in the letter that he ordered unnecessary tests now advocacy hundred twenty fifty sixty answer your question justice  advocacy is defined in the statute first of all there's two different damages and deficiencies one is appealing the decision to deny payments he constantly appealed decisions to deny payment and at out at the first those would be granted finally he was told if you keep appealing you going to get terminated he got terminated secondly judge advocacy means protest of a decision policy or practice that's the doctor believes impairs ability to this is an entity that has fifty percent of the patients locked up in kimono they they're the ones who enter into contracts with insurance companies and h m o s and patients have to go through them and that's the sort of situation i have here and this is such a terrible and because he protested he was terminated that's precisely fallen and that's a twenty fifty six your honor i really think so i mean i just i don't see how this could not be a violation of twenty fifty six years somebody who's an advocate who continues to appeal that's not true it's the case that i handled the case was designed to provide an opportunity to physicians whose whose opportunity practice is so minute by these these various entities out in a market such of th rejection of this contract if it hadn't terminated if they were so intent on on terminating this for some sort of bankruptcy reason they couldn't projection they didn't do what they did was as soon as he when he sued them and when he when he asserted his rights they turn around and they terminate his contract before they ever asked for ejection from the court and we think and all my position is june first i don't think they could do that at that point because at that point it had what they did in the district court affirms my question to you is what's the scope of review of this court what i think i as not executive ory when the motion to assume or reject was made such as such as contracts which expired post petition by their own terms after the date of the petition but before the motion was heard citing of right cases so here what happened be rejected so that it could not be a part of properly rejected but that has a purpose it was no longer exactly tory and i think that's the crucial issue here your honour's now we have some secondary issues and we also argue and i think it's appropriate that a bankruptcy trustee in any event should take into account public policy considerations health and safety considerations and i think it's very apparent that if if what we've all as if it's true that's a very serious health issues the rejection issues if there are issues the court would like to address and i suspect mr gale would like to speak to the state law issues  first we believe that obviously that the rejection motion was proper the rejection first of all was proper the state of the law in the ninth circuit very clearly under coastal and other cases is that you look to the date of filing to determine executive or anus and if the contract was exactly tory on the date the petition was filed and it can be rejected the reference to child world which is a bankruptcy court decision from new york is a outside the circuit a bankruptcy court decision not along california should not be a law and california and even if it were somehow influential it's not the case here first of all child world this language was out in the if you read the charles world case the case was exactly tory the court was musing that maybe something happened after the filing such as a contract expiring by its own terms which is not the case here expire by its own terms by the way the country britain so action was taken so that takes it out of child world no no this is the prior to terminate the action is taking well there were three ways to terminate this contract as i recall one is  terminations with just some notice period the second was terminations cause and the third was simply to send a notice ahead of time that your contract is coming out for it is about you know got to reject this contract because there's a contention that it's there's still a contract ok if that's what the if that's what the doctor believes then we all exercise or rejection rights and we reject it and we s i think just as bad as is observed is is you know what it is it's silly i mean it was there was certainly was a contract at that point in the view of of the appellant and so for it's kind of disingenuous to say there was contract or reject at the same time as contending in a complaint there was a contract to reject because it had not been properly terminated so we feel in any of that in for the first place based on just on straight ninth circuit  y which which which just record agreed with that was got the story on the petition date which council agreed with then we have an executor a country directory jack and even if you don't buy it think that authority is absolute then we still had an executor or a contract simply because the appellant informed us we had an executor or a contract so we had to make sure if this contract was terminated and we after sized or three sixty five rights so i don't think there's any question but that this is a there was some question as to what the standard is here the determination of whether it was appropriate for the in possession to you know to be jacked as as the bankruptcy court found is a factual determination based on the evidence and we submitted a thorough declaration by the way to the pronunciation the no evidence has been submitted that suggests that the rejection was not completely proper and for good reasons we've also cited the logical software case that simply a troubled relationship between the parties does not create any type of  the last point i guess i should comment on was is the issue that that's been raised with regard to public policy the public policy considerations have been introduced entirely out  of out of left field here in the sense that it is relies on a statute which was not relied on for the rejection it relies on section five forty four of the bankruptcy code which deals with abandonment  burdensome property not getting rid of contracts or agreements or leases it deals with getting rid of of of abandoning property and in fact the case that discussed  one in which there was talk in the mid atlantic case deals with toxic waste problem toxic waste on a property that the trustee was left with in a bankruptcy trustee and wanted to now case to spend the money in the case and pay creditors and the government came reach out to this other statute five forty four now if the court is inclined to make new law and i hope it's not then perhaps you might want to think that but the idea that public policy became can be considered  rejection and executive contract is does not exist which is why counsel had to stick another statute and try to settle this is analogous but there is no authority under three sixty five to consider public policy and in any event so i just wanted to make make that that clear and the idea and then there's the question of balancing the harms which is alluded to as a discretionary item something the court can do if it chooses frankly i don't agree with that particularly i think the lubrizol case of the sixth circuit which says you don't balance the debt or you know there's a bill to reject it's one of the most fundamental powers in the bankruptcy some professions code section twenty fifty six a it says the purpose of the section is to provide protection against retaliation for physicians who advocate pretty medically appropriate health care for their patients pursuant to physician recommended that she be staying in hospital for eight days the medical personnel who were monitoring and in charge of that account said no she has to leave after four days because of the clou referrals of patients she didn't protest that decision even though the doctor believes she should have stayed in for a day so she goes home develop some additional blood clot gets further has has medical problems that would have been they would say we don't want to give you that you know these are the allegations ok every time you order tests we don't want to give you the tests then you have to come in and explain why the tests were necessary and there would be a debate back and forth but the key allegation out in her opinion he said either you had to protest that there was a protest of the test and that was resolved and if you kept protesting we were going to terminate you but that's different from saying that as a result of this irregular heartbeat and he says i don't think we should conduct this procedure it would be unsafe for the food for the patient and they say no it's ok let's do it he says well i refused to participate in this procedure he walks out of the room in we told him stop has for us or you will be terminated now doesn't that make out a twenty fifty six case because you have to allege that the protest if that's what you want to call it and i listen that's a protest result and no patients suffered here according to the allegation the broadest readings of the allegation you can search every paragraph there is not a single suggestion that he patient suffered from the alleged conduct and that was metlife terminated his preferred providers status devastated his crack just reduced it to a small fraction of his former patients he was required to reveal that to other insurers and managed  medicine or medical specialty in a particular geographic area thereby affecting an important substantial economic interest and the plaintiff your didn't come close to alleging that he healed ledge that he didn't allege the devastation whether it would have renewed or not it could have been rejected by the court and they didn't make the motion to reject they didn't have to send out this no and if you look at the notice which is attach is exhibit b the second a man is complying to a tab six this is not the sort of you know a non renewal this is a very specific letter sent to agra while telling him we're non renewing you because you're doing unnecessary testing it's so this is nonsense they did not have to send out t it renewed all they had to do was going to the court if they felt there was a bankruptcy policy which indicated rejection and muster as far as five forty four of the bankruptcy code the argument is that that's constitutes a violation of state health and safety so that's a very legitimate policy question and an important issue of law and i think it's something that should be considered by courts and it is per they they argument the point was that the bankruptcy court actions has its discretion it has the discretion the reality is if you look at the track of the bankruptcy court did not take this into consideration whatsoever i mean these public policy issues they did not say well and nowadays because these entities whether they're i p h your insurance companies are true have tremendous motivation and they don't hesitate to terminate doctors who spend money on tests that they think are necessary other procedures and what we have here is almost a joke counsel says well there's no evidence anybody was harmed what do you mean this guy was terminated all of these patients are basically deprived his particular patients who he was seeing and were being paid for by this idea were deprived of these tests you know he's a cardiologist so the terminations and the statute tracks about it prohibits terminations for advocacy so i think that statute that we have it is there was it was well