emergency room benefits without regard to the preauthorization requirements which as i understand it is the buzz saw that your client ran into when he presented himself at the bar for  treatment you know that that i i believe is a misstatement of what this section requiring in a class action on behalf of all california citizens who might be covered by this practice of insurance that's what i want but what the practice that you want them to stop is requiring some sort of preauthorization for emergency room services right now actually what the statute requires is for them to pay for emergency services so long as the patient reasonably believes that they are they are in a medical emergency so the patient decides whether or not he's in extremest any have a health professional or i think i said i think it have to set aside significantly more reserves in order to pay a much larger number of claims than there otherwise all that means is that it's the second criteria under the kentucky health plan analysis that means that this law is saved from the risk of preemption the fact that somebody has to provide coverage that may cost them more only means it affects the risk pool so that meets the second pron understand it the question was whether or not the state legislature in washington could order a health plan that wanted to do business in washington to cover let's say natural patric or alterative health care services ok so you can't automatically exclude natural pass right as eligible health care providers here it seems to me there's a distinction you're you're asking for an injunction that's  two parties who are already authorized to do business under a risk and state law you have to pay a merge and see room claims if the patient believes that when he presented himself at the e r he had an emergency without regard it seems to me to whether it's a reasonable belief without regard to whether there really  does have a reasonable miss requirement that is part of the statutory requirement that the patient mean at least believe that they have an emergency so there is a reasonable risk of reasonable that's a requirement and in any  what's the difference between this case and yeah washington regarding the cases rather are completely different there are two lines there are two basic lines versus preemption there are cases arguing that the health and safety code section thirty seven one point four is preempted under five fourteen because it has an impact on the rest of plan this is a fiber to preemption case this is the case that deals with the preemption under section which the rest of which pre amps any alternative enforcement remedies here and the issue here is not whether section thirteen seventy one point four somehow impacts and it was a plan it's this is a completely separate case this there's health and safety code provision doesn't apply now to bluegrass absolutely blue shield is not arguing here who still could have brought potentially could have brought a different type of branch an argument under section  affirm on any grounds supported by the record and the record includes the complaint the complaint has three paragraphs in there one in each of the causes of action leading to class action both under each you see outlines well seal or a plan and specifying very clearly from bone cancer and wanted to get a two hundred thousand dollars bone marrow transplant procedure approved there would have been a provision in the plan by which he could have sought to of the plan or that the terms of the plan were somehow defective because they didn't comply with some other law that's all he's claiming but the basic question is whether blue shield improperly denied mystic like orange or other people benefits under their question whether blue shield should be found by california regulatory law the question is if there is a claim that lou shield breached a provision or that's plan terms were defective or that it didn't follow its plan terms what is the means by which that claim should be the member legitimately seeks emergency care services that they need to be paid for absolutely we're not disputing that that is of course a part of the plan and in fact what we are saying is that because mr clegg wants the entire government to be covered for emergency services  depends on his plan that that therefore there is a connection to the plan and that the duties that arise arise under the plan which was the issue again with the court addressed in tampa that that that and i think that's the court  you just tell me what's wrong with my hypothetical because what i'm thinking then isn't we are not seeking benefits in this case well what started this whole thing was we went to the e r and they wouldn't pay the claim and that's evidence of the fact that blue shield violate scuse me that you have to rewrite the terms of coverage in order to come or where because the duty of the health plan exists independent of the bananas to the net result is that the plan is being told you've got to pay these claims that under the provisions of the planet may or may not have an obligation just like think greg or the court was saying you have an i'm going to see how it's going to wrong because under gregg or and under kentucky health plan state laws regulating insurance can be enforced without a risk of preemption if i were if mr action even if he'd never been a blue shield and sure it couldn't be implicated it wasn't him going to the emergency room that evidence or that allegations in a complaint about him going to be murder was related to the that state regulation does apply and when they violate it they and a police action can be brought to enjoin them from continuing to inviolate from continuing to engage in conduct in violation of that state doesn't absolve this part of the responsibility of enforcing the law appropriately with the client i have well i mean that's the bottom line i mean