as it was prescribed by the that there was no dispute and that somebody was required or was necessary at the point when it comes down to the issue of knowledge the question relied on an investigative report which asked the record shows kept changing as we went out but the district court in essence pretty much with the evidence because if the court looks at what the court said at some point in order for the court to base knowledge the court said that at least the employees of dynamic vision should have been aware that it is not science so make that determination but however the district court gave the government well after the initial review of the pleadings by a court the court that i mean that he didn't have enough and then give the government another bad at the apple that that's not sufficient for the district court level if there's reckless disregard of whether the the claims are being submitted with the proper documentation what that is you are not all of them were related to know those signatures some of them had signatures the issue  court carolyn lopez on behalf of the united states plans of care are there waiting to see medicaid determines whether the services it's painful are or medically necessary and here i just want to back up to the big picture st before i understand it is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on the main issue and reckless disregard for the truth of the claims yes your honor and  whether it would have been obvious to the people tasked with sending out services and billing medicaid for that and there's no doubt the government has a very strong case on that issue but you also have the burden of proof and we're up on summary judgment and can't think of a lot of cases where a party with the burden of proof has been granted summary judgment on a question like intent yes involved so that the court found that at summary judgment was appropriate to find both that the physician who had delegated all billing responsibilities to his wife and didn't even glance at the girls to make sure that they were accurate that that was appropriate to find  at summary judgment that he had the requisite seen terror and and also his wife who didn't didn't do any checks before sending out the billing and that's exactly what we have here and i think it's it's really important to step back and discuss exactly how easy it would have been for seven people who are tasked with in trying the plans and that the reimbursements are only where the plans of care back up those services how easy it would be to look so for example you look at a patient file that only a couple of documents there's absolutely no plan of care that's true for fifty five percent of the people for whom damages for shop were side you look at a plan of care you flip to the signature page there's a blank signature on the right person never signed off on that plan of care that's true for thirty five percent of the patients in that for whom damages were just want to clarify here that the percentages will end up adding up to more than one hundred percent but that's because certain people in this park different part of the time have different problems so similarly you can it's really easy to look at a plan of care and say look at the date next to the signature and say was this done in the right period of time and that's really important because you can look at a pic patient six months later and say that's why you have to react these efforts it's not going to be probably needed services earlier and so when you have that type of evidence and it's again it's eighty percent of the patients and felt were exactly in that in squarely within crisis what eighty percent what are you covering within the prison so sorry to be eighty percent is of the twenty five patients that were in originally investigated and all of the damage eleven patients for whom there are no valid plans of care at all there are seven patients for whom there are blank physicians signature boxes three with untimely signatures six with plans of care that for example said this person needs five days of services but seven days of service beyond what's covered by the plan of could exactly and how many were alleged forgeries there are three patients there only it's a really small proportion of the total damages so there are three patients for whom there or you know i was just it is an intentional i just think that there is a did there's a difference between saying this is not the type of thing we would have done to saying as a matter of fact we didn't do this yes your honor but under this court standards which is some are to the standards and all the other parts of appeal where the only counter evidence is this kind of speculative assertion that's on information and believe because mr barnum cannot i mean he could speak for himself in writing an affidavit but he could not speak on behalf of the other six employees t mr i'm sorry it's bhangra him says he didn't sobbing and then who saw and well maybe it was someone else of the company maybe it was someone in the doctor's office to knowingly or unknowingly thought she had authority to sign sign the thing and send it over to the provider i mean that doesn't seem again back to my summary judgment point that doesn't seem like one on which the party with the burden of proof would get summary judgment while we disagree in this context because of the litigation history and the fact that defendants were well aware that these were these that these were the allegations and that this was the evidence and they didn't come up with any competent or admissible evidence to the contrary we do think that it was appropriate for the district court to assess damages based on these forgeries as well i did just want to step back to emphasize again that the percentage of these forgeries if this court disagrees as it is a relatively small percentage of the of the overall damages that were sought and one question about the forgery said i take your point that it's a small percentage of still would be something that the other damages which were in fact decided in an entirely separate liability decision by so one fact it was interesting to me just as a america level is that there's ones as to which there is allegedly for signature forged signatures and then there's ones that were left blank with no signature yes your honor so when you just oppose those it seems like it's a little bit more difficult to reach the conclusion that there was a ford signature when the company even out of the government's argument thought that it would be ok not to have a signature at all so sorry that i do you just want to clarify that the company did not think that it was fine to have a blank signature and this is what it be understood that they did have to have signatures so there's an example they were ok they didn't they didn't think it was ok i take it as a good point but there are at least circumstances in which there was no effort to forge a signature if you have the plans of care which in which there was no signature at all right yes you are and so with those it just seems it seems a little odd then to lead to the assumption that where there is a signature is forged because at least for some even under your estimation there wasn't a signature at all so the inference that the signatures were not  that i really don't want to see inference here that b we know and that we know when it's undisputed that the signatures were forged and then the only question is whether or not dynamic visions employees were responsible for those forgeries and are it's our position that that in accordance with what the district court found where the united states presented this evidence that the signature of her forge and that the doctors were saying