the problem with the ruling itself that's correct so if we if we look at that ruling in terms of what is required by law or goldberg was a it was a case in which there was a pre term a nation or that as the end of october two thousand feet but before the effective date of that determination she was provided with a hearing to provide information that would that that would give the me from saying that she's entitled to the benefits during the interim between the remain and the date of his was raised in any responses to a motion to do so you believe you raise it and receive that but yes of that so that was actually that was actually argued and administratively action that the correctness of that determination has never been has not has never been appealed and no no action against that hearing or to set aside that that that termination of her benefits that was affective as of october nd of two thousand and fifteen was correct that she was not entitle to benefits from that time so now to come in and say that she of what the what the gravel and then goldberg wells is that when you balance the considerations with respect to terminating the benefits of a welfare recipient which is those subsistence and you balance that against the fiscal responsibility ease of the government to provide that assistance and the burden of giving that predetermination here just let that person come in and speak for themselves that all of that balancing militates against the government terminating those benefits without allowing that person to come in and say and speak their piece in this case that there's a little bit of difference in the balance of what is happening here these are supplemental benefits for housing and you have to balance that housing authorities responsibility to both the community and to and to the recipient and here there was the situation in which her eligibility was determined to have that shit she did not supply sufficient eligibility determinations in addition destitute and that was an issue is was that person really destitute did they have did they have the basic qualifications and it was easy to come in and left up person speak for themselves about whether or not they and now to say that as a post here in the remedy that she is going to be paid for benefits to which she ultimately has not happened after having been given that due process we think is i think you say we'll have an opportunity make a ruling as to whether she had received it and we're hearing so he wanted to make sure that she got an adequate hearing and and the theory and the hearing the nd hearing was in front of a different hearing officer one of the things we raised was it the st hearing officer was in fact the person who had decided that michele key should be terminated or her who should be and and and that's one of the things that they don't get to do so he really ends his for a totally new hearing and you only reason given by the nd hearing officer was the drug dealing out of michelle piece unit didn't even mention the failure to  as required didn't mention the other things and i think the reason for that was we show these mental illness and michelle he was at the nd hearing and she spent the whole hearing with her back to the to the proceedings never said a word  to happen i don't think that's accurate i think it happened and she didn't take steps to stop it from happening but that was a result of her mental illness it was this brought out in the hearing words and it was harm no foul basically well isn't that the same here no because i think those students were looking for damages now isn't she looking for a deal she's not looking for damages she's looking to collect which she was entitled to i think she had been allowed to process i think did her her right her entitle me to that housing benefit and when she has a hearing where she's allowed to process and where and and  the hearing officer at that hearing determines that she had to do it for benefits should end and that's the nd here and we're not arguing beyond the nd hearing we're arguing up to the nd here from the time they th kicked her out to the nd hearing not the st hearing because we don't know whether she got to process a judge recommend vacated there that held firm not as though it never happened so that now if if you're going to rule that did the terminations is retroactive no then then that's the way you're you're going to room but i think in order to say she's not entitle to it  two dates they didn't do anything about that either and the issue was raised that we only want to judgment on that last order and the reason we only want to judgment on that last order was because i couldn't find out how much the benefit was i had to monthly benefit and because they wouldn't tell me i pick up the s and you lose how much is she giving her mother didn't know it's very difficult to carry on a conversation with michelle i didn't know she didn't know otherwise i would have used to be reduced  it's it's our position that michelle key is entitle to the benefit from the time it was stopped until the time she had she was given due process and it was the housing authorities obligation to the transcript because it's their obligation to provide a record and jack and then you know but having a court reporter was essential and necessary so he did work to pay for the court reporter but  to the time this hearing officer ruled against her on a hearing where she was given due process and where the housing authority met their obligation of providing an adequate record benefits would be terminated and that is based upon the of the grab them in of the decision to go over versus kelly and in that case the court specifically recognized that there would be into sixty seven dollars is have we agree with the district court that the pre determination hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi judicial trial we bear in mind that the statutory fair hearing will provide the recipient with  administrative review with courting to the predetermination accordingly the predetermination hearing has one function only to produce an initial determination of the village idiot of the welfare department's grounds for discontinuation of affective on october st ok then what the court says is thus a complete record and a comprehensive opinion which would serve primarily to facilitate traditional review and to guide future decisions need not be provided after pre term a nation stage and what the court was indicating that in that case where the only opportunity for someone to contest after terminations that that re ok and the procedural due process deprivation have occurred if that hadn't happened the fact that the record is perfect isn't was not perfect and that what post terminations fair hearing procedures to which goldberg recognize that she would be entitled better that there's going to be something that is more comprehensive in the future and she was given not only  fair opportunity to be heard and to have a reminded every reconsideration of how big this record was concerned but she also got that minimal determination that opportunity could come in and say you're wrong about this no council came and gave you many reasons why because of her because of mrs keyes disability because of the circumstances of the situation that she should not have been deprived of the benefits circumstance in which we say we cannot really merely say go away get out of that house we're not paying for your house and that's not what happened here it said we have decided we have made a determination