agree your honor i think that the issues had been fully briefed exhaustively briefed in my briefing and in the response of briefing there are however five separate and distinct legal grounds on which we believe the patient but the clause that your honor cited is not an ambiguous in any sense there are three separate anti assignment clauses in this collection of documents that make up the plan and the most important of the issues as far as standing is concerned is that the clause is ambiguous because it is in direct conflict with the claimant made direct  i certainly have read their language and i'm sure he would but why doesn't that say that they are agreeing that they will allow the claimant to original beneficiary so they say that you may direct them to pay and if they don't pay it then they have a breach with the beneficiary they don't say to the provide the the claimant clearly has the right to make an assignment to the provider which they did what clearly he made direct to them to make the payment but see receive the payment now it's not being signed it's saying we will make the payment directly for you because we're going to accommodate you we won't we won't mail the check to you so you then have to mail it to the provider but it you can only direct the payment i guess i do not accept rich respectfully a distinction between saying that you cannot assign but at the same time the claimant may direct if the claimant has the right a direct payment if the claim that has the right to direct payment in the direction of the of the provider if the claimant has a right and clearly they do then that right is something that the plan must follow irrespective of the fact that they claim anti assignment i mean based on discussions that they have to send the check to the provider right and they didn't do that and that may be a breach and it is a br payment certainly true but the the surgery center stands in the shoes of the beneficiary and has the derivative right to assert the claimant may direct cla just in exactly the same way that the the surgery center has the right to assert any other right that the claimant has under the plan the the your honor seems to be for closing the right to based on the anti semite clause when in fact the entire body of rights that the patient has the member has are assigned to the surgery center by way of the assignment that exists between the surgery center and the patient entire body of rights not just the not just any one right the right to as in force that payment clause is and the surgery center separate and independent from what is written in the plan in each case the patient signs a document saying we assign all of our rights under the plan basis for the right to do so the basis for the right to the sign comes from the the agreement the contract between the patient and the surgery center which is  how does that not violate the simon the benefits it doesn't violate the assignment of benefits clause because it creates a second right that is concurrent with the assigned the enti direct cause of where you have those t by some contract between the beneficiary stems from that that one of the that we've been talking ok correct and i would make a second point with respect to the assignment of blank weeks between the patient and the surgery center and the second point is that the assignment when we in the contract between the patient in the surgery center contains a separate provision in addition to assigning all of its rights under the plan to to collect payment directly by the we provide the provider the clause also says that in the event that for any reason the assignment is not valid you the plan i direct to pay me directly the claimant care of franchise and a surgery center and that has nothing to do with anti science but that second as instruction from the patient to the plan is totally outside of the anti semite clause and finally your honor i would say that the the the instruction there to instructions in the in the agreement between the patient and the surgery center one is i assign all my rights ok your honor his suggesting that that is invalidated by the it let's assume it is a second the patient says in that event then the plan needs to pay me and that help is not invalidated by the anti same applies because that's not in it that's not in this is to ensure uniform coverage of benefits for all plan participants and beneficiaries and for this plan there are thirty eight thousand longshoremen and other union members who are participants from bellingham washington to san diego california this is a very large internet and the parties bargained and i sign a provisional with every other provision of this plan in order to ensure that each all of these participants have some of the most generous welfare benefits available now on i mean i could just to we were talking a lot about how consistent with the any assignment of such benefit first based on this court's precedent and indeed be health care and spine bags both of which allowed direct payment to providers but nonetheless payments are made at the discretion of the trustees and do not imply an enforceable assignment and a third really is the core of assignment is who owns the right to sue who can bring a claim in court and also who can appeal through the administrative process when a claim is denied it does not concern where the check may be sent which is all that direct payment provides instead of the check having to go to the participant who would then have to send the check to the provider as a convenience for that plan member the check is sent directly to the provider and the the i think if i understand the argument plaintiff's counsel here it's that they believe that the claims were denied here because the trustees declined to exercise their discretion to pay them directly however that is plainly not the case and contradicted by all of the record evidence including undisputed facts in this case the basis for which these claims were denied are the bases that were set forth in the explanation of benefits the reason why that it's well i believe that actually most of all first that again the policy that set forth into video ads and forces anti simon professions but beyond that under these circumstances where we have a collectively bargained  self funded health plan the participants have a true and meaningful access to this these procedures these include the their local area welfare directors who are employees of the plan and also often almost exclusively are longshoreman or were longshoreman before becoming area welfare directors who can guide participants through this process as well as the fact that the union itself both at the local level and at the coast level have benefits specialists and benefits employees who are there to a participant through this process and further as a practical matter there are many claims that are in place that are that participants are bringing through the full and fair review process and through the arbitration now additionally as required under it's the plan would except authorize represented represented representative status for a provider or an attorney who would not own the claim as an ass and he would but who would represent the claimant through the process and in fact that is something that has happened though importantly that authorized representative has no right to bring a lawsuit following an adverse benefit the commission but rather stand more like the position that i am for my clients or my client owns the rights and they can choose to engage my services or engage or services of someone else precedent that answers this question because there is no case that has ever considered an anti assignment clause in conjunction with the claimant may direct cause in the conflict it is if they were not  special provision then the cause would be valid i think that is potentially true unless the cork were to accept a stop will or waiver grounds and i haven't argued to stop one waiver i think it it can be as they can be a stop to asserted in they've waited i think i fully exhausted that in the brief that on the issue of the contract on the issue of ambiguity and on the issue of the legal right and standing it is the conflict between the claimant may direct clause and the anti assignment cause that gives right gives the past the right to sue and we have the right to sue because because of that contract because of that conflict the anti semite kleis can't be read by itself it's ambiguous in the context of the overall plan and therefore it can't be enforced against the claimant tarzana because it's ambiguous in the context of the plan you can have a you can have an anti assignment kleis that has the clearest language in the world but if you have another clause in the same contract that says the claimant made to wrecked the plan to pay the provider directly the conflict between those two creates an ambiguity in the end the anti simon clause thereby can't be enforced