types of cases where an individual to a car party to a contract is particularly vulnerable to emotional distress and if a breach of contract happens they experience emotional distress and in those circumstances emotional distress is not recoverable through a breach of contract theory the other types of cases are cases in which regardless of the individual is precluded these the circumstances such that it would involve emotional distress emotional a serious emotional disturbance is particularly likely result and it's different from the the running of the mill settlement agreement and even in the case and so there's three reasons for that one is unlike just the normal e e o case this claim result a claim for emotional distress damages that resulted the agency having provided negative information or allegations that the agency had provided negative information to prospective employers and so in that circumstance the agency was was you distinguishing essentially the amount of damages question from the existence of cognizable damage question because there are certainly i guess my impression is that sometimes those things are distinguished and sometimes those are not but in the absence of a presentation of a quantification to the court of federal claims rely on vat absence as  a separate and independent grounds for rejecting the emotional distress damages claim here i do not believe so i think the court or federal claims held that you can't and these circumstances you  feel to declare that you suffered an emotional breakdown it was obvious to the agency she claimed that she had suffered p t s d in her case and at the at the mediation the this is not a case in which there is it's not very similar to a commercial contract in that almost all of the relief in this field bargain for was to clear her record and to ensure that she would be able to find future employment and that they would investigate what had happened when they when it when she believed in individual provided negative information to a prospective employer and so in that respect almost all this contract was all about ensuring that distress significantly different before the settlement it was emotional distress from what she alleged was discriminatory treatment after the settlement agreement the only possible emotional distress emotional distress from failure from i guess learning of a failure to comply with the clean up your records commitment that the agency made in the agreement those are two pretty different things aren't they i think the i think that they're similar in that the settlement agreement at the time of the settlement included emotional distress for the government's failure to the government's provision negative from ation about her to prospective employers and so i think that after the fact that they haven't taken the steps they've been investigated that they haven't cleaned a record and now she can't find prospective employment i think that that is this is the same and try to does the report does the record tell us whether once it was it became clear that the agency had not complied with its obligation to clean up the personnel record whether the agency then in fact did settle the agency's the record says that as of two thousand and nineteen june t conclusion on the emotional stress issue i do think that this is the type of case i understand it certainly agreements should not abridge a starting agreement should not permit emotional distress damages in all cases i think this is the case where the settlement is all about cleaning up the record or the records of that part of the allegations are that they provided negative information and that caused emotional distress and the fact that she experienced emotional distress distress  agency at the mediation makes this the case where the age where emotional distress is a particularly likely result as opposed to the normal settlement and in this turn and with respect to the identifiable opportunities  and lost wages whether there's sufficient evidence of her losing identify opportunities i think you just point to the redgrave case and state that she did identify some specific places that she spoke with  sixteen and that's the point at which she learned that the corrective action that the agency had not taken the corrective action is that right yes that's right and then did any of the agency's noncompliance with the clean up application so that what i know is that she reviewed job boards and then felt unable to comply throughout the process excuse me to apply you out the process but the to point out within thirty days of learning i was not compliant that there is a problem and requesting correction i believe it's thirty five d that she the country provides that in the circumstance she in even a breach that was not caused by the agency then she would she was supposed to follow that process and so we caused her to incur damages for breach of contract there is no causal nexus between the breach of contract and her failure to obtain a job she argues most that she could not apply for jobs or that she felt in her own subjective opinion an able to apply for jobs but that is st contradicted by the record she did in fact apply for many jobs and that was her primary argument at summary judgment before the trial court and into and missiles acknowledges that on page six of her opening brief that entire circumstance preceded the settlement agreement that circumstance certainly is not related to the agency's breach or any compelled to tell prospective employers or in some way so free strained because now three years after the settlement agreement she learned that appeal here is that she was afraid that the agency would disclose particular information to potential employers but there's no evidence whatsoever that the agency did that there's really no reason that the agency would have done that the only  moore what does the record show about the state of her knowledge of the agency breach when did she become aware that the agency didn't facility supplications the settlement agreement your honor the record i don't believe there is actually anything particular in the record although there was a reference to an april two thousand and sixteen inquiry that she made to the agency are requesting her file and when she requested her file in two thousand and have no reason to doubt that they although i would note that two of the provisions of the settlement agreement require that the agency appoint an investigation into the allegations that th or i know from my personal knowledge of handling this case below and speaking with agency personnel that it was because but again we couldn't find any documents to support that not the exactly why we stipulated that the agency breached the settlement agreement we're not disputing that this case is just about whether that breach actually caused miss field to suffer damages and for this court what's important is that missile doesn't stablish a nexus between the has wresting its rejection of the claim for lost job opportunities that failure of proof of causation did the court of federal claims on the emotional distress claim your honor this is never a claim that was raised before the trial court in the complaint the st time that the emotional distress allegation arose was in opposition to our motion for summary judgment it was an attempt to establish material disputed facts we didn't even conduct any discovery there's no evidence on the record at all regarding emotional distress damages and in fact i would point your hono to appendix three hundred and eighty one and three hundred and eighty two which is mrs fields and a rocketry responses and we had asked her whether she was seeking damages for emotional distress based on the breach of contract because in her initial disclosure sheet and quoted a reference to emotional distress and we were somewhat confused by that given the complaint and response to our in iraq it's where i miss field stated she is not claiming expenses and costs for emotional distress related to that we are aware that would be permissible if she were to fit within one of the limited exceptions that damages are generally not recoverable in a breach of contract case for emotional distress  have your summary judgment motion or i guess in your reply to her opposition did you make an argument about failure of proof of emotional distress damages or was your only argument that they're simply not cognize your honor in our reply motion for summary judgment we did make the argument that there was not proof or she did not meet her burden to establish damages with reasonable certainty the trial court didn't watch on to that or adopt it like i said the trial court limited its analysis to whether the damages were  all so i never got to the merits but you certainly made that argument and it's certainly before this court as misfiled has acknowledged here today that she did not in fact put forth any evidence of damages and this court workable and that's all we have here but can you say a word about i guess the legal question why isn't the sort of contract for which emotional distress damages of any sort whether it's limited to expenses and costs that flow from emotional distress or otherwise what why none of that should be cognizable in this kind of country other involving or keeping their three types the nd bulb in the disposal of dead bodies and the rd involving the relay of information regarding death this case and volves none of those facts there's no other exception identified in the restatement or in any case in any circuit that i've ever found that would reach sort of run of the mill breach of contract case even if the plaintiff had suffered emotional distress at the outset i found no cases plaintiff has really put forth no  suffering to fall within the exception to the restatement miscalled would have had to show there was once and willful misconduct on behalf of the preaching party and so because this case doesn't involve death even if there was an exception that she could fall within she would have to show that the breach was based on that once in willful misconduct and this field doesn't even allege that there's no evidence in the record as a trial court found government officials are presumed to act in good faith provide her for damages for emotional distress and again even if she were able to recover damages for emotional distress she still has proven the causation element and she still hasn't proven her damages the her diagnoses her provide information about her medical providers and explained how the agency's conduct affected those some some of which were preexisting conditions what counsel i believe her firm to is i made that in the area where emotional distress damages are permitted in a contract cases they are limited to expenses and costs what's your understanding of that i i do not see that argument again i think that obviously there's not a lot of authority out in the world on this issue and to some limited and i think that just sort of on the restatement that you need to go back to the dichotomy of the types of contracts that this is the sort of circumstance where emotional distress be out of pocket pollo on expenses i need mental health treatment and have to pay for it or something like that in the cases like the innkeeper cases or the the  harm and the court went through sort of the difficulties but that the jury had discretion i guess to find to set a number and if you know it's hard to establish it so i think that under that case that obviously isn't