on the school district and i know you could in your view make any argument here that it's capable repetition but it seems to me that's going to be a separate case if that would occur and here question here is whether or not journeys fees would be dependent on whether or not t d could argue that they were prevailing for it but that wouldn't necessarily flow from our decision it would flow from the was eligible and so we feel that both under the general the general principles that all courts have downs with regard to second guessing you're giving  wouldn't you know follow valuations on various scales those evaluations were done by using college just educational edge first including the neuro psychologist hired by the parents and none of them felt ok well i don't have a bridge here in front of me so i can't point to the page but i think it does you'll see that in the you know in our brief we make the argument that  that was this issue needed to be decided and they got up and threw several rounds of grease before this court and in the last round they said actually your honor is we don't decide this this issue this award of tuition reimbursement is not before this court therefore i it's is our position that to issue reimbursement having been awarded by the district court and by the hearing officer you should take mr ford at his word and affirm that award your honor brief you can look backwards and forwards and that it's just not there to all the challenges i g a eligibility and tuitions of the awarding of compensatory education by the district court and by the hearing officer was not under person under section five before the district court a one of seven one twelve one twenty one says three separate times to issue reimbursement and i'm sorry compensatory education was awarded under section five  to do with that award and you will find no argument anywhere in the briefs specifically setting forth why the second you were to wish me were compensatory education should be reversed they do not argue that the t d was not eligible under  so there is simply no basis whatsoever to to reverse or even look at or even examine the courts of worth of compensatory education under section five before your honor there is abundant evidence by them and those reports until the until actually i don't think a single report authored authored by the district found that t d was even a handicapped or disabled student that would they deny all along that he had a disability in december two thousand and thirteen when he was at and when he was at notre dame when dr catch more issued his report finding that t d was an eligible student under idea and of the under the disability category emotional does disturbance and required special education services that is directly in his report and that's what the district court relied upon even after that report the district said he's not he's not even disabled he doesn't have a handicap there's nothing wrong inappropriate based on that they say that there's there's no eligibility will dr catch more not only look at all the previous evaluations all the previous school district records did  questionnaires to the to the parents talk to teachers teachers at notre dame got updated information this was shortly after it he entered notre dame and found he was an ideological student who are part special education services and that's a district  so there's a clear basis in the record to support the district court's findings in that regard but ever your honor we don't again we don't think that the court necessarily needs to get today the issue why because and to the extent the court is going to examine the tuition honor in the chambers case which we've cited in our brief and this is at five eighty seven f third and one eighty four discusses the burlington accorded decisions and then says the court referred to the supreme court made clear that the idea authorize such a monetary award precisely because it did not constitute damages it did not constitute damages would not be awarded full and then in a due process hearing if it was compensatory damages it was only the fact that the supreme court held that it was not compensatory damages that means it is awarded will ninety eight proceeding it is awar the section five before proceeding for denial of faith and that's what we're asking for here are an education equitable educational remedy for denial of a free of quote republicans occasion this is not putting money in the parents pockets this is not money for pain and suffering emotional damages this is to reimburse the parents for expenses that they incurred because the school district did not provide the services and education it was required to do so it's an equitable remedy to put the parents back and the student back in the same position he would have been if the school district had fulfilled their obligations to begin with it's not simply not an award of compensatory damages the supreme court in this trial of this awards under the district court's reasoning which is a roni as is that one requires a showing a deliberate indifference away and one doesn't the court found that because he's already eligible we don't need show deliberate indifference but the court also discuss adverse ruling by a hearing officer we believe we were happy with the two abortive were to issue reimbursement we believe we were wards eligible for the word of additional compensatory education we also knew the school district was going to appeal and so we were putting all the issues before the relief in front of the district court we also filed damages case seeking additional not educational relief for emotional damages eccentric that case was settled between the parties and we inform the district court of that so the court only went forward on the educational claims in order to support the new order for the district court to support its finding of eligibility under id eight it had to rely on the catch more report among other things you are  but how could the district court under the modified de novo review standard that both the district court again are were required to give the hearing officers evaluation you know how could  the decision court have ignored the independent determination by independent and by the public school district the evaluations that concluded that t d was not eligible you know i don't believe that the court ignored you those reports it took it took them into consideration we also we the court focused on the fact that the district the school district found the teacher was not even in a handicapped or not a factual finding perceval it's at best a mix question of fact in law it's taking into account the facts in the record what legal conclusion to draw from that and the and the district court found that that t v in fact needs special education year and it was much more appropriate setting for him and he made a lot of progress especially after the first several months of the year even adapt point dr shillabeer found that he thomas was definitely a five before eligible and specifically set forth several areas in which  thomas would benefit from specialized instruction including an executive functioning organization emotional control instruction special education so he at that point he found that that thomas was an id eligi record to support that fi compensatory education the chamber's case in fact every case we could find regarding the spoke to this issue found compensatory education not to be compensatory damages in the context of id and that's because while the statutes are similar and we deal with these as the court does all the time and it isn't it it's a it's a frustrating kind of mystical relationship