highest and the unfair practices are between what happens he would have no way of knowing or having any informed consent when he signed a consent form that there's a facility agreement between the insurance company and the hospital and that they consent one is totally contradictory and a concealment it's clear they can't be disputed so when they say that we can follow me in the consent form and they say that you're going to be responsible for the loan forgiveness entirely the facility agreement i understand with all of the things i understand what the consent form says than what the facility of agreement does and what i'm saying is that anybody who goes to this hospital in science a consent form under whatever circumstances semi conscious conscious discount to which they are entitled this is nothing contracted for it's nothing more than buyer's remorse and it's all cases that are cited pro and con in these regions but it comes down to is is it the hospital made this deal that's the agreement they have to live by disagreement if they want to contract differently than what the greenman says they can't but they can in is as a couple of cases that you could have done it it doesn't take away from the league rights you didn't do it and here we of they do that because they want one hundred percent of their bill to which they're not in title why are people paying into and why are they painted our biggest premiums if they don't get the benefit of this bargain nobody told the patient who went to the have already to revisit these sections six four six seven and six eight it's abundantly clear that this isn't this isn't an option if they want to recall an option if they want to just say ok will you get the lesser we believe they are we believe they are because throughout the facility agreement ever meet section is the product refers to the costumer and the customer is not united healthcare in because that's how it's worth it it's all for the customer they can't get they can't get around it just can't own up if i may continue a couple of other points i would like to address the question about the therefore if there was no debt there was nothing for a living to attach to plain and simple and if they wanted to change that around they certainly could of they could have worded their agreements differently only subsequent after we had already filed a federal suit in other proceedings that taken place i mean if if they were so interested in a lien was valid and it was good why did they even have to bother filing that the silver cross hospital takes the position that once the under services to the injured party that they can then obligate and send out a lien for those services rendered irrespective of whether or and that's you know and their excuse is well that's to protect us to make sure that we get before them out but they knew already that the injured person your mr fault insurance was united health care they knew they were going to get some type of a of a payment they know that towards should've been credited towards pointed out that it was and then later a month later on april eighteenth united pays their share i thousand one hundred seventy nine dollars that is that the p p o rate and ever gotten credit for the one twenty six eighty seven that indirectly state on to the hospital from my understanding of the facts yes i don't think so but you know i like egypt that may have been the incorrect regardless though when you look at the facts here is that my client server cross had filed the initial main claim before the bill before the bell in order to protect itself in case there was nonpayment because if you look at the resumes of the contract the contract only between summer cross argument or alternatively still pursuing a claim directly from the person that owns the money and that that's consistent with what my client didn't this case here but the fact remains that not at any time have they been paid the full amount that they owe as what is allowed under the contract isn't what's allowed under the health care services and you know it mr falls had an issue with what was placed on the way you claim the proper avenue for him to challenge this is by trying to extinguish lead in a police you couldn't do that without they have to go they subsequently amended their own name claim to account for only the unpaid coping duckbill which was five months before the plaintiff ever filed and in this case in this matt michael because at that time you're still in north that's right my client when they received the settlement is that they had a wire saying that whatever you receive from united that's payment for all that's all you're entitled to my client the fact remains that there's been no payment is twelve hundred dollars the facts i don't know if that's an accurate characterization that is accurate that the lane was placed with eighteen thousand the check was received afterward there was a united payment in between then there's no injury to mr falls though because you can't get any agreement as to the contract between united healthcare and so across he doesn't have standing to bring that type of coin because there's that explicit provision in the contract this is no third party beneficiaries the only way that you can reconcile the language in this contract is to have that provision trump had united insulter cross tree intended otherwise they would have said except for what stated in section six point eight no third party beneficiaries didn't put that language which is why i focus on the consent form and you example i disagree with the characters a in a consent form there is nothing in the consent form that talks about that p p o discount there in that language at least of the language in terms of the filing of the healthcare i mean if that's what you're referring to your honor pressured have told them that he's not responsible for payment in full there is no way for so process to make that type promise they never made that promise to united because they don't know whether united's going to come back and say that these services are covered or not and that only by the mere fact the with employer maybe the premium wasn't paid and there's a lot of funny things that happened and that's by health insurers and  says that if you're on in the event that the patient or parent or recovers from a third party the sums equal to the amount of the entire bill for the hospital rendered services medical and or insurance provider for any signs previously aid to the hospital before that aspect will receiving reimbursement from the patient or third party it's difficult to read because of the lack of ocean weight and then it goes on and in addition the hospital is allowed to file a hospital bill and it sounds like they are out there the hospital returns the money to unite is tied up there all the another point which is come up in in all the arguments is whether or not the hospital was going to give money back to the insurance company but that's nothing to do with the hospital that would be the agreement between the surest company united healthcare and outlying and whether or not they can even have that type of return of recruitment in just a a separate issue but they are entitle to do that because the patient has  generally speaking the procedure whose hospital soon if you walk in give your name your address or if they're not in a condition to get that they'll ask somebody who's recovering and let me see your insurance card are you on do you have insurance surely you know they know they don't really know you can put those up place right as far as their ability under the consent form let's call it recruitment by me i mean that the insurance company can receive the money back from the hospital once the recovery from their