and it would be a gracious thing if we could actually settle this case before it enters its nd decade said that the court the district court had no jurisdiction on a determination that the agency so review was supported by statutes and regulations the same issue we have here sis i guess you pronounce it eggs are a z a r and it's number nineteen dash one of thirty three but the fact that that fundamental principle about jurisdiction was repeated is the point you want to make here to order melanie to forego their workers comp under the federal employee that's reserved strictly to the federal agencies by statute and that even you know in a race is article three significant question you can't go around the grant only of limited jurisdiction to the federal courts and that's me clear under the federal employment conversation at at the sections we decided to use and it's expressed in terms of in the body under twenty c f r ten dollars that's where it says not just the court even by mandamus by any process no one can order a federal employee to forego any of the benefits found belong to them under ficus own review process exclusive built and i believe is the case that the government the veterans administration concedes that point they've said that a number of times through their reply another thing that i think is crucial here is that neither party disputes the terms of the settlement agreement that were dictated into the record words and decide what the words me i think at this point it might be useful we ended the record some of the parts of that colloquy at the settlement conference that we believe will be subject to this court's interpretation and control page thirty one dollars of the record except attorney for the plaintiff appellant read into the record your honor worker's comp is completely separate and distinct from your claims or any other claims this was green just wanted me to put on the record that part of any standard worker's comp claim is a claim for medical medical bills incurred by injuries caused at the office and with the worker's comp she can s benefits for a percentage of or all of whatever her pay is and at that point this was created just when a clarification because she was in the process of getting medical treatment for her eyes subject to the fico markers and that was key to her that was critical at that moment in her life but that doesn't mean there was a waiver of something that the court followed that saying whatever any seven of the record of page thirty one dollars of the record excerpts to that the government replied that's exactly correct your honor i think that's clear now what the government has talked about repeatedly is that we don't want to have it in settlement agreement there if we tacitly agreeing that she can recover lost wages in a workers comp case with her disability supposed to be the replacement of that now that our interpretation would be that they were arguing you couldn't give collateral stoppel effect they couldn't say that she was entitled to recovery of lost wages or any determination of disability because that's what was still contingent on a decision from the agencies that's all  case so we were dealing with the fact that her disability is increasing throughout at the point that it's begins to appear she might be so disabled she could not take equitable relief in the form of reinstatement or accommodation then she would be able to pursue any of her other than if it is an employee of the federal government but she would be dismissing reinstated she was getting damages for her rehabilitation and that i think is made clear in over again is the government continue to exist so we're just repeated because it was so important if the application for disability is granted disability not necessarily shut down stop go away we don't want to see you again if the application for disability  we're appealing change shape on appeal after we got the replied life from the other side where they conceded all these things because there were even respond let it happen the district judge it said we were supposed to go away we were supposed to just go away she could take her minimal disability retirement benefits under the opium and that was it and she was out of court and out of the job and out of everything melanie had she had different injuries different remedies and she can pursue them both under that curry could encourage analyzed other cases that we also had adopted in reference in the br relationship the v a went about its efforts to see what it could do to do that and looked at various retirement options for missed why screen and the retirement option that miss y screen chose to  t to terminate and sever the relationship was o p m disability retirement that is important here because after the settlement agreement ms y screen apply for and  sought benefits federal employee compensation act benefit that is very different than opium disability halves and the primary way that is different is that with feed the relationship is not the government at that point there are several things that i would like to address that counsel opposite are raised in the st instance only issue  jurisdiction whether the court has correctly decided an issue does not bear on whether the court actually had and in this again the district court did have jurisdiction to render a decision that is a different question than whether the decision was properly rendered and the government's eyes a number of cases that support their concerns neither is section twenty meter section to fifteen of twenty c f r nor the statute terminates the the court's jurisdiction to enforce or or not enforce a settlement agreement in this particular case and in particular the argument is not right that is not what we're dealing with here what we're dealing with here is a is a decision by the court to determine whether a settlement agreement is or is not enforceable not a review of a decision by the department of moving to the merits of the case here the district court made a determination as to what the terms of the settlement and the district court looked at of the settlement agreement and the district court determined that ms weiss green was only entitle two hundred and fifty thousand dollars if she retired on disability something that she had not had not done that bonding by the district court is not only supported by the record but as judge will it suggested mrs wise green is actually waived we believe and we make this argument in our brain that she's actually waived her right to address that issue with this court as the court has already said miss wise green spent the majority of her opening bringing talking about subject matter jurisdiction and did not address the court's factual findings as to the terms of the settlement agreement and and we believe therefore that she's way that argument and then if you go further and look at the merits of what the court determined the terms of the settlement agreement were we believe that even if the court were to address that issue that in fact that the record supports the district court's determination in that regard the idea that simply before the point of the settlement was to terminate or sever a very contentious employment relationship there are multiple sites in our brief and i will note them here for the court that support that proposition benefits as well as for medical care as well as any any lost pay the the b s council responded we can't agree to that that that was the response because again the purpose of the settlement agreement was to sever their relationship further own in a colloquy the when the where there was some other top about the figure benefits the government's counsel against say said we can't agree to her being paid last pay when we're painting her last paying the one hundred and fifty thousand dollars was meant to cover the period of time that it would take from his wife's green to have her disability application approved because she was on it ministre typically without pain during this time so some of the one hundred and fifty thousand dollars was meant to cover that period of time that it would take for her disability applicant to be approved and for her to wrist start receiving our disability benefits and further the the statements of both miss wise green and her counsel in  compensation that was what she was looking for to fake a benefit and it was with those representations that the government into this settlement agreement absent those representations the government would not have done  already said we believe looking at the entirety of the record that the proper thing to do here is to our remained the case for the district court to consider whether the settlement agreement should be vitiated and the parties place weighed that argument but we would note for the court that the th circuit has on a number of occasions remained of the matter to the district court for the district court to consider and i'll turn an alternate ground opera's decision and in particular this case we believe that the terms of the settlement agreement that the district court properly found are accurate and the terms of that settlement agreement require widescreen to retire on your honour's in the portion of the settlement agreement that this court was directed to by the government for the government we can't agree to that your honor to the extent that she's like blank i think we should just leave it at whatever her worker's compensation claim is that was a clear statement from the the presentation that there might have been a mutual mistake i think it was clear at all points he repeatedly said again your honor for the claimant worker's comp is completely separate and distinct from