we would love to hear from the  is proceeding on an implied totally implied contract that there is no written agreement is your split along those lines are or not i here are not completely i don't have contracts me to do with the court at which is to divide the implied contract clients from the express contract clients in fact according to dress that it all despite what the complaint says the court no reference to the expressed contrast to the fact that some of the patients about three quarters of the transformers area from one hospital to another conscious or their loved ones are conscious but defenders don't give a price disclosures in their written agreements they don't give it orally they don't put it on their website they don't attempt to unfettered discretion to set a price at whatever they want the agreement they undertook having not put the price in the written contract having not pulled the plaintiffs about it either not negotiated with the insurers having not in any way taken unfortunate however there is a document signed it has some import we also say for example with respect to one of our clients that was she trying to sell forms whether they were consent transport form that's nuts and there'd be a major revolution right because nobody's going to fly from washington to denver without knowing what it's going to cost them think of it yet it that is precisely the case before us that you have an injured person hiking in the women who cheat they get injured and a friend calls to send a helicopter and the hell could they said we're sending a helicopter and what they're going to cost me oh we don't tell you how much it's going to cost you we'll tell you later oh it's just going to cost you that's precisely this case rate it is your honor and if i may i'd like very it's up to four points so strike and we all remember the historical events but ultimately to look at the airline deregulation in the airline deregulation act says that the states may not get involved in pricing but that is a earliest under but to be very clear the act does not regulate pricing that was the entire point of the statute to take the federal government would obviously did regulate pricing out of the picture but it  in this case we do not have at least asked for something yes we do not have actual us and so the question is what to do about there are two theories there coherent but the two principles i previously articulated the count of plaintiffs one that is what's good for the goose is good for the gander everything is deregulated there is no law that appliance and too bad air transport or air ambulances you don't get to charge for your services then there's the government's there we think the government's theory is preferable because it's consistent with a third governing principle concerning the context in which state law is not preempted this is the dance city tom principle that principle says the preemption provision of the d n a should not be construed such that there is no law to apply instead if there would be no law to apply there would be no ability for parties on either case because you rely on regulatory last state regulatory law for disposing of the car and getting your compensation but if you rely on that law the person who is hardest who also has to will be able to rely on the same compensation relying on state contract principles that's because there is no other body to apply a federal law does not a provide substantive pricing and there is no other regulation by the department of evaluate the district court's determination as to whether or not there were implied in fact it's our excuse me express implied in fact or implied in law contracts change as for the express an implied in fact contracts state law may provide the terms that are missing if there are missing terms because number one state contract law is used to effectuate decisions that voluntary undertakings of the party and number two govern the transaction between the parties because otherwise there would be no law to apply to it for the privilege of the federal government that is what the visitation of the federal government is in a context in which there is no express basis or some other basis the compensation to be paid that's correct or i wouldn't that was your position they would say not state court but state common law state common up principles could be applied in a federal district on what the started framework is in the end if there is an actual agreement yes the parties may not rely on state equitable contract principles to constrain the agreement so in ginsberg there was an actual agreement there was a ticket purchase which is a contract between the pap then you without the possibility of forming a contract with a person who's unconscious a person who has a medical provider make decisions on his or her part has no ability to undertake contract and so in this limited unusual circumstance so in some of these cases as the gentleman who argued first told us his contract his clients have written contracts but they do not provide for the amount to be paid now is that the position of the united states government that in that case the parties may resort to the state courts to determine on a reasonable basis the compensation due and owing  brander stand up to speed slightly differently on or i don't understand the dispute as addressing the four on that aspect of court or state court i understand the dispute doesn't fall in what law would apply in this particular case brought in federal may resort to state law for the purpose of determining on quantum merit or what other principles it which is to apply the amount due and the mechanism for collection  cases it in some instances we do not let me let me get to that to the extent that there is a question of whether we need to provide id to patients as there they're coming into their helicopters or on their websites or whatever what our rates are that's a question that is before c review their recommendations and decide what to do in terms of regulations guidance or whatever one of those questions is disclosure of of rates and that is a question the d m d s as like a single regulatory agency is going to decide on a national basis do you agree that in the absence of interesting those routes that the or the some form of one merit principle has to back to the very first argument today about about eagleman and how it relates to this case here eagleman said that eighty eight did not in did not preempt the obligation to pay the state there are market forces in play at the ph i case which you cited in the breeze addressed that issue there are market forces in terms of there's obviously competitors in this industry there's issues with with carriers getting on preferred l you get a really special day on united let's take that one instead what they do is call one of you to go get it right that's right they call one of us i mean there's not like multiple fodor's raiders of the airline ambulance industry that part of what the air did it allowed the stakeholders including the states to be part of the policy making process part of that committee that's going to give some recommendations to the d o t on how to address have deregulation yes it may be a perfect market but we're not going to pull area emulous is out of the scope of what we're going to do instead is let the let the d o t give it a little bit more direction they get reported back to congressional committee in terms of it was services and the and higher and in title one that the towing company had to dispose of this vehicle that had been abandoned was under the state out without the state act it wasn't entitled to get rid of that car and  take the money from it the plaintiffs in that case was saying in the course of a doing that you you the state may have authorized you to do it but you had to be notice when he knew that i wanted my car back you had to go through this process or whatever so i mean that was all part of the same regulatory framework so getting rid of it did leave a void in that case what we're saying here is thing thing that happened in the eagle make case the state we're not saying the entire state law is preempted we're not saying that this involves that the market ok and i and somebody whatever i say i'm going to get well i'm going back to what i said earlier it's not a perfect market here but there are market forces and play that that that is part of what we used to set claiming these are those and saying we're not we're not bound by those make what you serious interesting but the fact is that you're going into a state court to collect these fees that you've set against recover but they cannot but do they give her the right to access to the state courts for that purpose yes so good you're really between a rock and a hard place because you agree with the government that the state court is the proper vehicle for collection but you denied the state court the right to set the amount it can't that the main point here is that it cannot be injecting state reasonableness principles into the price i mean that that comes from wallace to that that comes from ginsburg and the notion that we can contract a rounded me first like in for didn't just say can contract around and then you're good not have jurisdiction to go around asserting enforcing judgments unless they're done under the uniform and force of the judgement sacked or under some other principle that they don't give a party judgment but merely do as i said be a bill collector we're saying we provided a service whether you want to call it quantum mrat a contract implying in law right we provided a service we aren't tied to payment here's what the payment is here's what we charge here this is that customary rate and you can use state notions of reasonableness to to change that you know you have to charge something different now if i may restate what you just said the united you said the united state courts do not so what you're saying is that you have the right to come in the united states district court and say we submitted a bill to judge briscoe who was out hiking the woman who cheated and here's her bill was forty thousand some of these bills are forty thousand dollars forty five thousand numbers like that right right so here's a bill for forty thousand dollars law notions a reason on this to set the price then anytime we have an agreement even if we give the schedule they've agreed to what at that point they're going to say based on the same allegations in the complaint here we were under duress we're not bound by that so here we're going to do made based on the needs of the parties perceived by the contracting parties at the time when you think about that statement in the context of the advanced city case which says not only would the preemption argument earth by the defendants leave the vehicle would bring this into a never one where they set their arbitrary price they never disclose it they choose not to disclose it they choose not to to negotiate with their carriers and they've been imposed after the fact and that is not the law under the new the a almost no one can say this so what happens is you get a medical bill for sixty thousand dollars you could be refinancing your home and that there now all what happens to the family is that this occurs there must force conference holding this court reversed the deed the injunction to demand payment now we are at the point now frankly they were all of these cases and there isn't a week to goes by somewhere in the united states there is newspaper article about harry and stays there crushing the patients that's an actual controversy well in fairness i mean we don't know their cost it may not be crushing in the context of the of the controversy with thank you thank you thank you all for your arguments this morning the case is