good morning may please the court i'd like to reserve about four minutes please note that the time showing is your total remaining time that you are on the issue in this case on this appeal the majority of of this case is determined really by a single issue do the plaintiff appellants have a property right for their entitlement an expectation of benefits after they fi this is a case that was reviewed at the pleading stage as well so really it's even broader because here the plaintiffs actually pleaded that they net the standards of california labor code thirty six hundred at the time they submitted their claim so really this case is can there ever under california law be an expectation right for a injured employee who files a work comp claim before a judge issues  really that you may have no expectation that this california law recognizes that this property correct and if you look at what this court held in jacobson the one offense it talks about the extent to which the statute contains manda terry mandatory language is the relevant question for determining if there's a property right of the california courts because we're bound by the california courts interpretation of california so amendment protection through the fifth amendment related to the due process protection so this is a federal nine hundred eighty three and rico claim that it certainly looks to california law correct what do we do with  application and the court cited to the perry v cinnamon case and i believe the rocky the supreme court cases and said there are protections for those but they are not vested rights the taking clause applies to a vested right allowed as they submit their claim for benefits when it first has to be a property right before you have the procedural protections so it can talk in circles if it doesn't then then it doesn't become a property right  i know there are unvested property rights that are owed some procedural protections under the two part process clause so in an example would be this court in griffith v dietrich and it was a welfare case  san diego county and there was a statute that said if you meet these certain requirements you haven't entitle me to that right of welfare benefits the mere application itself was a protected  in title meant to the process in that the property interests them it didn't say there was a property interest in them if in the welfare benefits it was the right to proceed further to try to obtain th in there are procedural protections that are akin to me to own that's the property rights and that's what the bowers case addresses when it says there's a difference here between a full blown vested property right and  requires different interests so there are certain and vested interests who do you do what with graphic aggressive was a plain personal injury case nothing is more is a statute retroactively changing the qualifications for benefits and if that happens here if the statute said there's no longer these ten specific rules for meeting the current claim that would be to same thing so if for example that benefit itself the worker's comp benefits can be taken away that's not the issue here every single one of these plaintiffs got their workers comp benefits two three four five years later we're not we've never would have been able to sue in court and say we need our workers  benefits but graphic involved a retroactive statute changing the process and that's the process that we say is required here that there has to be some procedural protections for them as they're submitting a claim the mere fact of submitting a claim rico claims and very specifically say absolutely not rico claims are always outside of the exclusive remedy scheme and there have been quite a few cases as well that have addressed whether an administrative scheme itself is enough to correct and that's that that's all property right is ninety nine percent of it there is a small issue at all dressed in it and the second is a entitle it to benefits creates a property right to receive the fair process t claim they submitted is allocated protection under the due process clause and the deprivation of those benefits for years and years and years amounts to a deprivation of the property right to mean you are mashing claims and that there is a due process right in those application for those benefits there is a second circuit case called crable which is not a worker's comp case but it involves when the deprivation of benefits amounts to an injury to a property right in what the second circuit held in that cases agree distillate is absolutely or harm to a property rights and the d c circuit and once it said an application for those benefits that was a federal workers comp claim were employees for the city of d c were submitting claims they were denied egregiously overtime in time in time and the district court said that is a protected right in fact it said that your clients ultimately got the is the exact same thing they receive their benefits eventually two three four years but there is harm caused when you're refusing to provide it and wage loss benefits to injured workers and that's what also the colorado court of appeals addressed in city of denver the same exact issue and application and in some cases a actual worker's comp benefits claim after it amounted to an injury to a due process protected right and then the district court of arizona in miller v york resurfaces was this identical facts identical defendant identical firefighters and police officers for that city they submitted a claim judge said work of the district of alaska was sitting on that case and he held this is an injury to property based on the expectancy of that right to worker's comp benefits under arizona law yes counsel should the trial court have treated the disability benefits differently from medical benefits absolutely and if the supreme court in american manufacturers be solvent address this actually saying that where medical benefits you have to show are reasonably related which is a not which is a discretionary function reasonableness is something that may be in the audible holder indemnity benefits or automatic where the worker's comp claim it meets the standards set by california labor code thirty six hundred there is no reasonable requirement at all it's automatic it's par now amazingly in the other of their briefs to the plaintiffs you can talk about any of those decisions they just ignore them as they ignore them here this morning no  type the plaintiffs are pursuing here and the reason for that's pretty simple because rico requires an injury to business or property and worker's compensation is all about personal injury provides an administrative remedy and exclusive approach through the worker's compensation appeal board and if necessary through the california state courts as an exclusive mechanism to adjudicate their claims including claims of outrageous behavior if that's what they think they have remedial would be available under the workers compensation scheme for outrageous denials i believe and mr cooper can talk to this in more detail there are fines and penalties and then of course there three claim the they got the procedural due process as mystery reset they need a jew to cater their claims through the administrative scheme they got the process they were entitled to but that does not mean they have a substantive right to either from nine hundred eighty three purposes or for rico purposes by i understand their claim to be that it's it's entirely possible that some of the claimants may not be entitled to the benefits they are requesting but the way i read this case or understand this case is the plaintiffs are claiming that your client unreasonably and unnecessarily and with purpose and intent delayed these they delayed the final day of judgment  show a substantive vested right to property but it almost doesn't matter because as those circuit court cases that i referred to a few months ago indicate rico certainly does not cover the mon of personal injury claims no matter how the claim is adjudicated whether it slow or not that was the very claim that was being racist all those cases was your slow pay you're not paying i should have a right to these plaintiffs faster sooner or and each of those courts of appeal said no that doesn't get your rico claim and the federal courts should not be in the business of adjudicating the insurance process and a routine claims there is a mechanism under state law under the statute to do that the entire purpose of the workers compensation scheme is to avoid case by case adjudication and to have a more streamlined administrative mechanism to get people paid without regard to it's more than that that mechanism was created years ago to help workers and to avoid these claims of negligence and this sort of thing in the workplace the plaintiffs are claiming that your clients who are the third party administrators i believe were putting their claims on what we can call the slow walk we'll see in ten years perhaps but in in the meantime we're going to present as many delays and obstacles and speed bumps in your way as we can but yes you have a process and we'll follow that process when we get around to it and feel like that's kind of  claim that they're making and does that not create at least a section one hundred eighty three due process violation no your honor i don't believe it does because there is a mechanism to do that they are not being denied at meccan so the workers compensation a  board we have no control over whether they file an appeal or how quickly they try to process that appeal how can they appeal anything if there is no final adjudication their complaint so we deny them benefits they can they can appeal that they can file petitions with the work of plant board i believe even if we're just ignoring their claims there is a whole administrative scheme with specialized newsreader war judges who deal with this they just don't like that they don't like it because it takes some time and they're like it because they don't get a jury and they're like if they don't you trouble them just like they do under rico so they're looking for a way to get around the worker's comp system as look many people who fall insurance plans workers comp or insurance say oh the insurance company is slowing down my claim they're not give me the benefits and we can't say that every time somebody has one of those in their own happy with the way the insurance adjuster or the clinton administration is handling the case that they because that's what's going to happen and that's what none of these cases have said is appropriate judge bernard project that starts when i'll give them every opportunity say show me a vest or property or show me something that you could actually say way for economic purposes takes this case out of exclusive w c a b you're a section under the under exception no sorry don't believe it us well  why isn't that similar to the purposeful action or inaction of the insurance business traders here because everything here is part of the routine handling after the briefing was completed here the importance of the fact that all of the routine handling of claims including dealings with claims administrator was and utilization review and all that every company insurance or otherwise wants to keep its cost at any plaintive can come in therefore and say you know what you denied my claim and you were just trying to save money and that's outrageous every single insurance claim that's the that's going to be due respect there is no basis for that in the statute the statute dealing with medical and dealing with disability payments section forty six fifty first what the if if an injury causes a temporary disability the next section if the injury causes a permanent disability there are issues there that need to be determined on a case by case basis it's not an automatic right to payment first we have to figure out is there a disability at all is a temporary is a permanent what's the extent of it was it caused by the workplace injury is no different then the factual determination that need to be made for medical benefits and whether they're reasonably necessary is not a different standard under the statute and there's no basis to bifurcate the treatment of these claims just say that certain planes were going to put through the administrative process and certain for going to bring to federal court i'm intrigued by your argument that if the plaintiffs were concerned by the timing of the decisions being made in the judy cation process that there was a remedy for them and state law is as your colleague i believe mr cooper can you can speak to that and given that i promised him five minutes not below that i do section fifty eight fourteen and subdivision eight hundred fifty eight fourteen point six subdivision a allow administrative remedies in terms of statutory penalties for and reasonably withholding workers compensation that there were seventeen people who are asserting that there was intentional delay each one of those individuals could be radically be awarded four hundred thousand dollars  for improper claims handling there's a separate code section that's labor code section one twenty nine point five subdivision a that allows for attorneys fees costs and sanctions for cause you know i'm a ceramics remey none of that interest to the benefit of the client well there's a separate fifty percent penalty of up to ten thousand dollars for discrimination based on the falling of workers comp counsel one of the plaintiffs have the right to file these these requests is a separate legal action that they file no  no these are these are done within the administrative regime itself do they have the right to bring these claims in the administrative regime prior to a final adjudication of their claims yes absolutely is that a recognition by the state of washington state vested property interest and i know it's a vast question to my friend on the other side regarding the distinction between whether there should be a distinction between disability payments versus medical treatments indicated there is no case law that says that but do we have that recognition via statute we don't because as was discussed earlier it's all conditional in order to be able to recover whether it's disability payments or medical treatments you have to meet certain conditions the fact that you meet all of the ten elements under section thirty six hundred by itself that doesn't stablished an entitlement that's just the beginning of the analysis it's not the end and just that as another example of a regulatory or statutory basis for distinction as a claimant whether you go to a treating physician who is within the medical provider network or whether you go to a treating physician who's not in the medical provider network wages as was suggested by my friend on the other side and this statutory citation for that is and it's in the title eight of the california court of regulations section one to seven eighty five subdivision before d that imposes a mandatory duty in the primary treating physician to affirmatively savile ish entitlement to compensation which encompasses the loss of wages my friends on the other side also mention substance substantive due process the reason we don't have such as elation here is that the only the only right at issue is due rights to receive statutory benefits under the worker's comp system we're not dealing with the fundamental rights such as the right to get married the point to the second circuit in crable where that exact argument was made and the court cited to cleveland board of education be louder mill and held that the minimum procedural requirements are a matter of federal law are they are not diminished by the fact that the state may have specified its own procedures that it ma your benefits there is not enough if due process has been violated that's what your response to the policy council's reference to the other circuits that have reportedly the same claims that you're making here i would argue first those are all issues distinct in that they're dealing with the six circuit version of the michigan law and whether a rico claim exists under that and the jackson bissell we're dealing here with a rico claim exists under the workers compensation in california correct under california law and under california law there is a right to benefits based on the lack of discretion in the statute related to the injury to property which i think is what  to this case is bound by d s p gates which is the on bach decision from about ten fifteen years ago and that goes in great detail defining what an injury to property is and what the court says is where this false imprisonment which is a personal injury claim but it causes some property damage that is enough under rico and here as the district court of arizona said miller we're not arguing that the on the job injuries or our claims it's the harm to the benefits for the submission