opportunity for the circuit to bring home the reasoning that it set forth in maine and on how to how to analyze situations such as this or in the alternative adopt the reason that's becoming more and more yesterday is well aware you to be in order for us to have any kind of settlement first of all we need to we need to have all of those all of the terms nailed down and secondly we need to it's crystal clear in the law that we  sign in order to be enrolled in the medicare program it found that this document was forward looking and on that basis what it was was not an appropriate certification well right factual  did you provide for the claim that at the time they signed the enrollment applications they knew it to be false because all the pharmacies that were controlled by the drug checks waive co payments various pharmacies themselves that they that they that they do this is a matter of policy where the enrolment application is signed in years before the incidents that were described here they were they were signed years before and the allegation is that these that these kickbacks were going on you know from the you know from the time that they were signed over from the time they were admitted in and until the present but at least until the mr grant your point came on the scene found that if it was bored looking it therefore did not constitute a certification it certainly was not an express certification and the seventh circuit does not recognize implied sort of certification and there therefore if it the country if you don't just think that that is enough we strongly believe that that that the that the courts or the doc implied certification as the district court seemingly seemingly urged in order to in order to capture this this type of mean i think that this court's reasoning in maine is not implied certification as i think it's much more intellectually rigorous than than than than than an implied sort of the court really looks at the you know really the central question of what is a defendant doing when it's when it's signing up to the government is it is it can is it lying in order to get the government payment how is that different from from an implied certification liability because the three men and complain alleged and ongoing scheme why shouldn't we consider that argument that was based on the two thousand and ten amendment waived her failure to raise it in the opening all claims because certainly they didn't they didn't give kick not what i mean in a claim in which they were asking for something contrary to the law right the the the government contracts with away from other pharmacies right it was kickbacks to the other person actually taking money from the government well they they are taking money in the form of getting reimbursed through medicaid for the for the prescription purchases a customer comes in she gets a prescription for arthritis she walks out with a you know either a wave co pay or a cash gift card or or some other some other sort of gift that is by definition a kickback the pharmacy then asks the government for reimbursement for that for th that harms the government or is it just part of a competitive struggle with other pharmacies i think that's actually the central question in this case i think that's that's that that that really cuts to the the nub of the whole thing and what the what the government competitors are competing against each other but under the terms that the government that the government wants it doesn't want a kickback rich environment compete on compete on other things you know your store read or work or you know was the cost of that added to the cost of the prescription no it was not was not added no but not that though the real question is what is it doing to the overall market you know if if if were to allow kickbacks if we were going to say to the pharmacies go ahead and go out and do this that then every pharmacy is going to have to do this in order in order to to to compete that's automatically going to going to change the way the you know the entrance fee to to to the playing field  co pay can be waived though it can be way but not as a policy not of not not not as a regular thing you have to do you have to look at what's the dividing line between the occasional waiver and doing it as a policy well we don't even have to consider the dividing line because they did they were doing it as a as a as a policy there must be a dividing line a line somewhere i would think that if that's the dividing line would be consideration of who's up who's of who the customer is whether they can afford the coke the co pay here that they they did it you know as a matter as a matter of course it's clearly a way over way over on the on the other side which is advertised that they waive the co pay it was advertised at the way the company when asked about retaliation claim yes it's not included directly appeal its reasoning there and mr grant or made no governmental complaint or complaint outside of the ukrainian village pharmacy did had been within ukrainian village farmers exactly yes yes so could that be the basis of a retaliation were television claim against against ukrainian village in the book checks who were you know the you know his supervisor and in the television by that retaliation by them yes because they were responsible for his dismissal illinois where another employee brought a similar claim and it was held up but i'm not aware of a nother pharmacy interesting question is this some is this these ukrainian russian and pharmacies system little world apparently yes yes yes so they're not competing for the day of or the bigger repro the bigger picture here like greens and so on and i can't imagine that they wouldn't be everywhere i mean so or someone always has the opportunity to go to a walgreens my time is up so they must you know almost but you know by definition you competing with them i see so they're too small to be noticed by a and rule nine d required particularly when pleading fraud particularly as more than just general accusations of wrongdoing here the relator must provide specific examples of wrongdoing to satisfy the who what when where and factual basis for this alleged fraud continuing past that date other than by generally saying upon information believe it continues to this day or to the day that when you say alleged fraud do you mean these kickbacks didn't occur or you corners stated enough to support these allegations and my position is it did not and the district court thankfully agreed it is woefully deficient of specifics well i don't know the caviar and  the relator includes the sort of occasion allegations for the first time in the thirty minute point and he says that these things were signed he can't tell you who they were signed he said our information believe it was this person of this person he well first i don't think the rogan decision the district court's opinion did suggest that and i think went on appeal that was not the issue before the court it was materiality and that case roe case dealt with an in fact the entire complaint mentions my client five times out of five times the only allegation that somehow can be come from my flustered and carriage to the alleged fraud level i do believe that waiting called grace was not dual eligible beneficiaries as a result ukrainian village pharmacy would waive those are what you just have elderly customers medicare medicaid you want to pharmacists are encouraged to wait for pay for the all eligible individuals and there is only one other what do you do for do determine eligibility or do you just have a general policy of not very difficult to answer no it isn't difficult a answer does that could do your client simply not collect co pays in the examples provided and i came here i can answer my question and answer yes you know and oh i'm sorry that men and that that amendment is not applicable here whether or not the government would in fact honor it and provide a copy of the form for each entity involved the relator failed to conduct any sort of previous violent investigation and as the court has often set out the purpose of one b is really two important purposes number one is to prevent you know sort of extortion ery you know money grabs and number two is to give the defendant notice of of the fraud so they can see you know what the allegations are clearly we've got the first perp with the first purpose is is is satisfied here but we need to look at that at the second and consider you know whether  time is up i see my time's up i'm going to do it for the purposes of nine b it's it should be crystal clear that the that the that the defendants can can look to see whether the programs that are that are alleged