then why does she have a right to bring this claim i don't know clomid bring this claim if she's not trying to see something for herself ultimately then what right isn't the ultimate it's not about her eligibility it's getting her pay as to what you claim or pay as to benefits isn't that right that that that's correct but that's  if what the cases seem to say is unless she's seeking something for the future something that will help her in the future as opposed to getting compensation two wrongs and she she's not permitted to pursue it in federal court we have to look at the reality of what's actually being done here you can't just divide up the  case go ahead but your honor she's not asking for the court the federal court to order benefits what she's asking for d is the court to order the state of oklahoma to conform their proceeding to comply with federal law if they could but the only reason she's doing here we have to look at what's really going on here the only reason she wants that is so she can get benefits all indicate this is the cases you've cited are ones where there's some future benefit you go to medical school in the future you'll get your bank but your honor the th amendment with all due respect applies to federal court to does not apply to state courts or state proceedings yeah but you're using a federal court to get this no sir you up if white when i go to state court then why are you in federal court going where you want a ruling saying this is illegal and then you go to state fair to say this is illegal therefore you have to reinstate you have to give me past benefits saying you're entitled to this sort of hearing and you don't do anything with that then you don't belong in court you have to have some interest that you're pursuing have standing to pursue t the reason you have some interest is because you want to get those passed benefits which is great that's fine but you can't do it miss court but your honor we haven't pled that in our complaint or response ed we have not asked th shelter state has never asked for the federal court to award benefits what the shelter state has asked is that the scheldt state be afforded a process in state court which complied with the federal statute meet and we have an individual hearing and then the th amendment does not apply to a state court proceeding but the it st but to have a right to sue you need to show that you have some stake in the ultimate outcome you need to say i'm going to benefit from this litigation ok otherwise you don't go on court so once you stay how you're going to benefit it's clear that the benefit the only benefit that you're going to get from this is possible rian award of past benefits no your honor and there's no what else ok well then then explain what what is the estate going to get ultimately if it wins this federal gave a fair hearing a fair hearing that complies with federal law the fair hearing to determine something that's totally irrelevant we don't do a fair hearing before a fair all due respect what we're asking for is we're asking just to be able to be heard the process in oklahoma has an error if you're hurt you have to explain why we should care that you're heard well because her virtue of all the medica labels not what you say you're asking for but the substance of this litigation is seeking retrospective belief that that involves you up and the minute the other question is in insofar as you're seeking it in jumped  very very important difference between ppaca and this case the difference is pekka was seeking the the court asking the court to review approve and award benefits that is not what s just like to have a fair hearing on her denial in front of a state tribunals in a proceeding that complies with federal law now if the state court awards benefits which we believe that they will because keep in mind they all jaded the st time then great if they don't then they don't receive the benefits but watch the show to state is a title is due process and for the state and for the profit and for the proceeding to comply specifically with the statute t only purpose that you're going to gain out of that is that you can tell you that judgment and go to state court and say here your system is wrong your system would not give me a fair hearing now  me a fair hearing so i can get relief and and if that's the only thing you're trying to do it is the supreme court's and as jeff hart's concurrence and in we're on around the eleven men that's the point the point would be if the only thing you're going to get out of that is the ability to do what you i hear you say you're going to do which is to take that judgment that the clerk who are judgment and go to state court and say now give me a fair you know to the federal court awarding retroactive damages it does not apply to the state court what we have here your honor is we have a flawed system and it doesn't comply with federal law it doesn't give due process because the same decision maker that's making the decision on application is also the trier jury and executioner on the state system all the a state wants is a fair hearing how do we fix this problem if you don't intervene and enforce federal law and make the state conform their process to be able to go back and win that case we don't no that that's up to a state court judge and which the th amendment doesn't apply to them that i think that let me press pause there why would that assumption have to be trigger and that you would be part it's what you're asking for is not what do you get it so if you map that same scenario at play here it's just one step removed what we would be saying if we did what you want it is ok the state system is flawed are right now we argue to go back to state court and ask for benefits one step removed same process you're asking for something so why should we allow you to ask the state court to hit its when you could not in federal court ask the state court to him this because this is the only way to solve the problem your honor if we don't have if you say ok there there if the state does not have an ability to recover money at the state court level then the case is moot there's no live controversy at stake so how do we fix this problem i think it's common sense when we have to argue there is a problem with the open system but how do we fix that without having a lot of controversy that is exactly what i think people who consistently judge our current you may be able to fix and you just can't fix in federal court i mean that's the point i mean i don't know what try to get money for on the state if that's what we would be doing and no no part of this bill this issue is simply that your client i mean i'm not trying to make an advice we've been in your but i think we would at least have a much more difficult question if your client was a lot of the if your client could benefit from perspective but your client can't your honor my client is the estate and all the estate is asking for is one thing and that is to have a proceeding you can ask to get benefits under that sure oh this isn't what i want to give them all we would be well just as when you go to federal court and you were to sue the state and see money there's no claim there's no guarantee you get state to give you money because the oklahoma system specifically violates and reeks of impropriety that's what the problem is if i like the federal statute it violates the due process clause the th amendment and it violates common decency that you have the same person involved in a vice wait in the application and then turn around we have three witnesses going to test you so that half a dozen times is no one else challenging it is a no one else with  director of the oklahoma department of human services and i will be spending my time with susan need to as counsel for the oklahoma healthcare authority i would like to briefly discuss the underlying facts of this case because i believe it shows there is no ongoing violation of federal law and the appellate as asking a federal court to overturn a past decision it is unhappy with appellants with appeal was heard by an impartial hearing officer the hearing officer was not employee of beleaguered division at the time was working in a separate building however even if you take the appellant's accusations as true the facts show the appellant is really concerned with past action of v h s not an ongoing violation of federal law appellate submitted to the appeals process despite already knowing all these alleged biases the attorney for appellant has tried many cases before the same hearing officer that was involved in this case the attorney for the pellet has not raised these issues in past or current cases that involve the d h f appeals process  the and this case the appellant filed their complaint in this case only after d h aesthetic to appeal the hearing officers agency to the director of hill i did not wait to see what the directors decision would be if you did not appeal to the state district corps as allowed in the state you cover an appeals instead she ran to federal court for an injunction confirming a favorable past decision now the appellant is trying to claim that each appeals process constitutes an ongoing violation of their due process and federal rights when they do i do not believe so even under under state law you know i'm saying right here in front of us now is right here in federal district court that they've brought an action challenging the legal or prior to under under due process principles or otherwise federal law of the homeless system and sort of the clear terry judgment that that system is legally flawed and we're able to benefit from pro specht of relief because they were a law would they be would they be similarly situated to the appellant here or would they be in a different position or no your honor if if the opponent was alive they would have been able to bring the claim in federal  court and that's that's kind of the key distinction is case i believe that the because the appeal is the ceased she has she can suffer no ongoing harm because she is deceased when you started i thought you were going to be saying that there might have been problem in the past a due process problem but that's been sure there's been no change in the state procedures since this case was from the you are the state fake statute that covers appeals is still still the same as when the case started decision that was favorable to their client and fortunately for the appellant the th amendment are sue in a federal court against the state by its citizens expect parte younker a limited exception for cases where there is an ongoing violation of federal law but ex parte young makes clear a federal case courts are not for cases in which there's been a past violation actions of the appellant make clear what it really wants is for this court to rule on a a legit past violation of federal law medicaid or perhaps even ordered declaring d h s cannot heal to its own agency director either way these would be passed violations of federal law and the appellant would not be entitled to relieve even if this court took all the appellant's facts is because there is no ongoing there's no ongoing injury in the future so the case if ever was fried from the time that the federal claim was filed she had already been deceased so the case didn't become by her  ok but the appellant has argued the substitution of the estate of mrs schulze or mrs short's individual causes the now the minute benefits to be an ongoing controversy but if this were true you have the minimum bar on retrospective relief article  would be an illusion as a fact a concurrent states every past a action should be characterized could be characterized as ongoing simply by the opening of an estate of the deceased plaintive upon her death mrs shoals as an individual ceased to exist as a legal entity at this point her claim ceased because there was no it legal entity to claim the rights and if you believe the appellant's argument the controversy restarts soon as the probate estate is opened the violation of federal rights resume at the moment of the stay is opened clearly there is a break in the violation of federal law it writes if you believe appellant's argument so there is no ongoing controversy because the  audio feed and so we're opening the speakers apologies and to continue on from where my counsel with that end with regard to the question i believe you judge holmes was we're posing with regard to the article three issue again  scooter at page eleven speaks to the article three arguments and the issue about federal courts can adjudicate only actual ongoing cases or controversies finding the who is versus continental bank court case for ninety four  decide questions that cannot affect the rights of against the case before it again citing back to the same decision at lewis and noting that me to supply them for i don't i don't question that that there are there is is a case or controversy issue worth seeking if the allegation is the perspective we sought i think just get philip's point was simply that this is not a situation where or where if the if the focus of the case is prospective relief ongoing believe this is not a situation where the quite tip was at one point eligible to seek perspective are we and  cease to be which is a classic situation this is a situation where when they file the claim they were not able to establish they had an interest in perspective which  administrative venue and so i believe at this point even be able to go back to try to seek a statutory excuse me a state court action there would be such a limitations problem and into to your point that i think your co counsel made i just want to clarify  pettifer that they not only could they have proceeded to to challenge again and administratively did the decision but they could have been gone to state court state district court and raised a challenge of the same sort that they're state in the state administrative system how would their remedies play out what could they have done to surface the same sort of legal impropriety claim that they're making i believe again your honor that they could have court and once they received that decision they didn't anyway seek to amend their complaint in federal court nor did they seek at that time to proceed with the state court action and that's what i'm trying to understand you say that there was an adverse directors decision and at that juncture was there a red eight what was the pellet pipeline to challenge the adverse decision and i believe that would have been in state court your honor ok so the next step in challenging that decision would have been in state court right i believe that again as you noted your honor initials was already deceased she died in december of two thousand and eighteen so it would have been brought by him through her estate but i believe that that could have been addressed in the state court but that action was not elected by appellant hearing your honors at the time i don't have anything further to share in that your honour's have other questions for me i have about a minute left but very good thank you