yours is the facility agreement that was entered into between st mary's hospital and the insurance company private health care systems inc they have a pay or in the pay or under that system was consult she is no today under section one point three there's definitions of the contract covered person etc there's no dispute that mr berry per the definitions would be covered person under this agreement agreement all will also provide for preferred payment rates and the preferred payment rates are basically discount rates per the contract between the hospital and the insurance company private provider seven point two makes it abundantly clear that once the provider is paid by the carrier in this case  preferred payment which is to discount payment which is its may its full compensation paid in full there is no further basis under this agreement for st mary's to pursue mr barry or anyone else for the full amount of the medical services that they render more all the same birds even or going there on the first two bills on the first two bills  that they deserve to any more payment on the first two bills are they that's my question with that with the lien still being outstanding and the lien requesting full payment affective what you've been paid there is no debt if there is no debt then there's it's extinguished and there's no lien to attach but that case being the law st mary's took it upon itself to enter into this agreement with a console she had in private health care system that contracts away any ability for them to go ahead and get the full of up it's not as if they didn't know it and they should have been or were aware of the n c case the second agreement which i would like to mention to your honor's and it's happening right is at the beginning when mr barry went to the hospital they had him sign what we call send another that consent form it provides in part under question to be it st mary's is authorized to bill the treating physician so they could basically go to the insurance company and collect three b states in part the patient is responsible for payment of appropriate charges for subject for services rendered if the requirement is not fulfill which they knowingly entered into a contract which obligates them if you search that they want the benefit of that agreement because discount agreement the idea would be they would be able to bring in possibly more patients because the preferred way but they don't want the responsibility of they don't want to pay out on it and why don't they want to pay out under because they want to get a hundred percent recovery for their billing and knowing knowing that they can't do it now that consent agreement your honor also says towards the bottom there that the patient is responsible for all the charges that's not true and they know it's not true and how many for patients supposed to basically the four responsibility for paying for the medical services rendered by their client st mary's all the file fairy not true why isn't it true because that agreement prohibits them from doing and how is anybody who comes into play on the circumstance of the hospital supposed to know that this agreement is is even in place they want they want  based based upon and see based upon lopez based upon whatever weight this court chooses to put on judge shaders opinion which is cited debt there is no need to attach anything because that has been explained that's when they're what they're doing here now if you multiply what they've done by hundreds of dollars people you're talking about a substantial about the money for which people pay good insurance premiums and then there's also the question of whether or not pursuing to be terms of the facility agreement then actually made these submitted these claims we know that they didn't mr perry now to go in and make his claim with the insurance carrier because in terms of his policy they're not going to look at it so get st mary's takes upon it hit him themselves to do what they want to do isn't it odd that saying mary is the or any hospital facility is the one to determine whether or not someone is entitle to ensur i don't think so i don't think so and i don't think there's any dispute with respect to these agreements regard they also had a reservations of their rights subrogation they don't have this here so as far as we're concerned the regard is not good of course the health care services when an act provides an absolute right for healthcare providers to assert lean related to care that it provides the statute it's means it is that the amount of money that is had issue for the services provided will be paid hopefully into a fund and it is a hospital has asserted a lien against that time the hospital has plain language of the jack them based upon this court's prior holding st mary's hospital and like many hospitals in the state and in this district comply with the law and when a person presents to the hospital and they've been injured they take out a lien on any future recovery many of the health ensuring agreements that are at issue in fact have language that require the hospital to take that step because the insuring grima is excess to third party coverage in this case actually when the claim was submitted to mr barry's health insurance company the health insurance company denied the claims because it said there is a third party liability and under the terms of the contract you need to go collect from that hospital before you can turn to us but the bigger question i think it issue in this case as opposed to the individual issues that have come up with respect to mr perry is that the the purpose of the class action complaint again it's not an individual claim class action has been filed that is saying to the because if the assertion of the moon is valid which we believe under both a statute in the law it clearly is then mr barry in the class can have no complaint because they've not been injured so the only complaint they can exist is if this court were to write into the statue some language that isn't there basically pretty good but in the hospital from asserting a lien when private health insurance is it's a person that's a very good question but the argument was not rates below it was not in the complaint it was not in any of the of the five the standard practice of the hospital is if it didn't happen here because it was never asked for and it's not an affirmative conduct that the hospital after and we've been sat payments been received affirmatively i guess my question is in the scheme of hospital is not claiming any additional money though the liens themselves upon payment if i could go back in time they would be released and it's something that i'm sure will happen now that this is done for looking at and addressing questions and some argument that has been made here the hospital does not disagree with the fact that it was stated that the hospital contracted away its ability to recover the full amount of the medical and that that principle what that means is that when the hospital entrance into the preferred payment plans it does agree to accept a lesser amount for a service and it would otherwise pay the hospital cannot turn around and bill to an individual covered by the plan the difference to the full amount worth what they agreed to pay under the agreement with the healthcare provider the hospital doesn't do that that would be called called balance the hospital does not do that but just because contracts are entered into the provided discounted payment ready for a health care plan does not take away the statutory right that the hospital has on the one hand to a certain liens under the health care service and we believe the judge little when he reviewed all of the he reviewed the case law that he agreed with the fundamental premise that if the hospitals actions with respect to asserting the lien were appropriate and allowed for under the statute and under control in court that then the case as a whole have to fail and that's why it was this missile with prejudice on and and that's why we're where your honor so i could answer any questions you might have i don't feel the individual facts are overly relevant given the procedural posture today i think that the law's clear i think the hospital followed that law i would ask that the  that's what it's for but there's nowhere to be found anywhere that when the hospital and tears in to a contract knowingly and voluntarily and having been aware of prior cases that say the contract you're bound by your contract that this statute trumps an agreement as i said initially and i repeat again if they were so concerned about the health care act itself in the in the effect of the contract that they do then per lopez her and c they were not prohibited in any way from putting it into the contract those terms which they feel would have protected them against why we're here today they didn't do it so they can't come in here and argue it all of a sudden say that that this statute this white house everything the way it does have argued counsel mention that this case is filed as a class action yes it's filed as a putative class action a motion to certify the bat was found but that's not before the court now we never got the discovery of the issue of not before the court at this time hopefully down the road it will be the release now they were very capable of sending out a release and co i mean it goes both ways yeah well i have to be fair to say yes all the time because different attorneys operated different ways i'm not a personal injury attorney if it's if it's resolved if it's out if they choose to they can but it should be incumbent upon st mary's to release their lane because they have the money in their pocket but they still think that they can collect they might still go after mr barry this because counsel says th horror again they want the benefit but they don't want the responsibility i'd like to clear up this one thing that i said in the opening and when i was forty from the consent agreement fulfilled the patient is responsible for payment of appropriate time or even if they're not fulfilled they're not responsible for the charges and they're not responsible charges because they entered into a contract that doesn't make them