it's not preempted right because my understanding is it was removed to cattle court because of nebraska right that's right all right and if it's not preempted and it goes back then there's there's no federal that's right ok with you have been jurisdiction by the washington supreme court as well that's correct and that's actually where i'd like to go and that is i think the watching the supreme court opinion our position on whether there's an exemption under the discrimination here that is for nations statute is very simple  regulation it's forty eight thirty zero one zero and why is that important because it shows that the insurance commissioner and the supreme court recognized that insurance commissioner under the insurers of business cl terms of a plan or two or three clarifying benefits under a plan in each case the statute is talking about you're challenging something that's happened under the plan that's not what this case was about the plaint that's last minute kerry did specifically consider whether he should retain jurisdiction when he found against us on the arrest of preemption issue and he was definitely decided that because he had put so much time and effort into the case to the idea of a federal district court coming in and interpret ing state law if there was no state law that was directly on point and when he believed there was any question about how to interpret that state why he did not hesitate hundred applies to health care service contractors because the appropriate we found that the language of the statute says it does not the washington supreme court has said that that statute does not the legislature has said so and the insurance because removal jurisdiction depends on the existence of the federal question you can't you know  in fact in cleghorne he relied on a california statute that required healthcare service plans to cover certain emergency services which was broader than the emergency services provision in his plan so he was using the california statute to argue that that statute required modification of his plan such that benefits were required under the plan that were not otherwise required under the plain language of the plan and that is exactly the situation that we have here case because meredith is not alleging that we the improperly failed to provide benefits under her plan but she's alleging that the plan itself is illegal and she is trying to bootstrap the title seven claimed which applies only to employers to claims that then regions had an obligation to provide contraceptive coverage so we believe that even if you interpret the r c w forty and thirty three hundred to apply to get you forty eight thirty three hundred as in our brief we cited a number of statutes and regulations which all very consistently hold that health care service contractors are not in the business of insurance and when the legislature and the state health plans and that statement is misleading because it was not included prior to the action of the new regulation in two thousand and two mr berman also says that his clients are relying on statements by the washington insurance commissioner and i would point out to the court that the former insurance commissioner just steers attorney of record for the plaintiff in the caves and i believe that the court should look at what she said while in office when she in acted a court use that is worthy of certain consequences of requiring health carriers to cover every thread or treatment that has a greater utility for one sex or the other and the washington supreme court refused to go that far we believe the district court properly followed washington state law in holding that our c w thirty three forty eight thirty three hundred does not apply to health care service contractors and if you agree with the district court on that  point the case was brought under challenging a violation of the unfair claims practices rules under twenty eight have to wait for thirty three twenty there's a specific provision under three thirty as a whole does not apply to regions in fact to reach that conclusion the conclusion of the lane a case would lead to to assert resolves one of the washington supreme court opinion would be moot because how could the washington supreme court deciding to the lack that i said if you earlier if there was no authority under forty eight thirty for the insurance commissioner to be regulating this is some assurance that it just can't happen coun regents disparaged these regulations for the again the washer supreme court had the same regulations we're talking about this morning and said we're going to give great way to the agency and that i think is the rule of law issues that people had and it's it's it's often the case when there's rumblings in the industry for example where the commissioner might be hearing that some people think this doesn't apply with commissioner says i make it absolutely clear i don't want to be swirling around out there