n it also is an extraordinary circumstance and it isn't on that point isn't there a way to check whether the entity that is being dealt with the medical services provider has that federal defendant might be a federal employee based on the firm's past experience or so as situations here there is noticeably less evidence at least in the existing record that the lawyers at the gallus when it had any reason to suspect generations federal status so the case goes back and what we now know is that the gallus did have previous experience with the dean federal health cent wire let alone a lawyer at a firm specializing in medical malpractise with specific fire acquaintance with this issue would not investigate the federal nature of potential defendants as part of standard due process  overrule like you say but but there are nuances in all of these things and we're really you know this is a case where judge roy and have made this decision based on paper submissions she did a lot of her own research i've never met judge  you've never encountered us which she has no idea what occurs within within our law firm if you if you look at the imputed knowledge issue i was trying to think of with what the example would be i know a lot about  bringing cases knew before the human rights commission i know a lot about yellowstone injunctions and i know a lot about some civil practice and what carolina and in connecticut i don't share that information across the firm and i'm not obligated to do a week ago an officer out on the street here probably has no idea what we are saying is now charged with knowing that what he she is doing is unconstitutional now i did a fair amount of the kind of that you guys do i did some medical malpractise cases surance defense i don't see how one gets around essentially being charged with if you're going to take on a case being charged with meeting the standard of care that one taking on such a case has to make and in a t c cases sadly i think in this case you're charged with knowing who you're dealing with government you know for the proposition that this information should have been shared across this group and we know for sure that i didn't know anything about it and we know for sure that the attorney record was to the engine load who conducted the investigation in connecticut that if you hold yourself out your firm holds itself out as a specialist in medical malpractise doesn't it have some responsibility response you human that suggests it has some responsibility to know that certain defendants are likely to be deemed federal employees or at least look into same issues every day it is a state court focused practice it always has been these you know what's happening right now is more and more of these health care facilities or are coming on board with the deeming  competent medical malpractise lawyer back in two thousand knowing two thousand can two thousand and eleven nobody would have said i had a reason to suspect that we had to do this and i'm you know it's hard to make an ev like i would i would i would like the opportunity to prove that that question goes to i don't i don't think we're going very honestly i don't i don't think we are going to get a fair hearing on that issue in in coming up with their own issues well it's been very doing some of our own research let me ask you are you suggesting that essentially the standard of care for an attorney malpractise suit is the standard by which judge bryant had to decide whether you get a pass for missing the statute of limitations or missing the issue that gives rise to statue of limitations because it sounds to me like that's what you're saying nobody was doing this and therefore nobody should have to have done that and now we know and so going forward there's a new standard of care seems to be odd i have trouble acquainting essentially what i'll say is the malpractise standard not not meaning to imply anything and what might be a heightened standard if one is taking on is holding oneself out as able to take on and joel and june thirtieth of two thousand and eleven and the the facts in the case or or that there was there was documented reasonable diligence throughout that peak period time i think she didn't do you think i think that judge bryant gave excessive weight to to the issue of the huge knowledge and did not give appropriate consideration to the strong evidence of the government's in the record whatsoever she was assuming what these people in the pacific and in georgia and in connecticut we're doing without any information or any knowledge whatsoever about them sort of you know so i think it was an  mean in looking at cases for example she found a case from a number of years ago where generations is discussed isn't that something that why is that an appropriate she's trying to figure out what it  basically we look at the medical records we talk to the clients we speak to our experts that's how we do our research we don't say oh maybe they've been sued before we you know it's not admissible anyway where on these websites it's it's not as clear as as you might make it it's not as clear as i might prefer your honor as a litigator it's as clear as the government might choose to make it because the more you the government structure grant recipients as to how to conduct its business on the website on each individual step that they go farther and farther in the instruction the more we open ourselves up to liability as not just a group grit funder but rather someone who's giving instruction to become a contractor so i can sit here as a leader and say we have told what steve just on that point what's what's the net and result of that it doesn't strike me as anything different i mean the government if if you know if the defendant malpractise so if we were to go to a health centers that befall that's not to go the more the government takes each individual step to dictate to that health center how it should be run the more likely they are to become an independent contractor to submit to general liability as opposed to just for you and i apologize for it just in the idea that it's a trap the problem with the plaintiff's argument is that the case in the very cases they cite where this court has been critical  it's a situation where an accident occurred or a mistake occurred which would warrant disclosure to the council in the form and it's a discovery of a new area of law at least as counsel argues that no one knows but this is something we didn't know about so see certainly is the best fit for this case it's the facts are almost identical as we've now had a chance to establish them and develop them after remain on and the idea that centers should somehow control doesn't make any sense because  beyond the fact that it's a third circuit case in central the plaintiffs affirmatively reached out and made contact with us that didn't happen here there was no for example chris to demand there was no demand for insurance information any one of these and there's a lot of reasons but frankly why you'd want to do that some of the ones i just mentioned also reasons why an attorney would want to check west slower pace or to term and whether that generation has been sued before for instance you might want to know who councillors to figure out service or process you might want to know what experts they've used you might want to know what kind of claims they probably won't want to know if the court has found them to be grossly negligent or sanction them for discovery there's a whole host of reasons one attorney do want check that now because of difficulties in establishing an executor none of that impacted their ability determine the proper defense none of none of the records research none of the try to determine what the cause of action impacts their ability to do the diligence and with the proper defendant this court said the page one forty five of a t c that half of the diligence is figuring out the cause of action the other for you after the diligence is figuring out what's the form who's the proper defendant what procedure is there are those could have been on any point during the two and a half years they have to look at this case from so we think about any sort of the time that it was an incredibly expensive time to do something that but frankly this the court's observation i think the district court's disagreement is dicta because it doesn't it does not impact the holding in any way shape or form i mean there are reasons why i think the district court might have wanted to say that but it's not in the record i can give you my opinion but that would parties diligence and you have the attorneys diligence and either a lack of dealing either one lacking diligence will defeat the effort to get  honor and especially in this case it's it's actually especially clear because no party would be expected i don't think there's any expectation that a medical malpractise claim to films into a law firm that specializes in medical malpractise and the plaintiffs herself or himself would be expected to figure out the proper defendant the proper procedural mechanisms so i think in this case we're really it's only looking at the buildings with the attorney rather than  see something like that coming in we're you know well you didn't think of this and didn't think of that and it's not really part of the case and becomes part of the case and i think it's totally with the judge i may be clear i think it's totally within the judge brilliance corroborative to do the operation in function of the h r s or the h r as a website and hotline and a and a few other issues are or argument is that you know almost every single issue that this court other person had a case back in two thousand and four and two thousand and five that would be sufficient that's that's what she said so really the whole case does hang in there part of the case does hang on that issue but this issue of government transparency and we learned in this case that and you know not only is it is it was it was not exercised here not only did the generations not provide that deeming information to anybody but it turns out that it is it is concrete government policy not to do that we know that from the position as soon as i says i submit that that's very very important and address the point issue that this court was concerned with three years ago i think that you know wasn't given adequate wheat by judge bryant in her determination thank you thank you both for your arguments the court will reserve decision