welcome to the united states court of appeals for the th circuit so we have one case to hear today in the special setting we trust that you're familiar with the the way our timing system works my only reminder is that jurisdiction in the recent case of lexmark international vs static control commission the supreme court clarified in very clear language what constitutional standing w you at all if i also says that you know it in the context of that case that was a case in involving a provision that that with a direct payment authorization the court in dialysis newco clear distinction between a direct payment authorization and an assignment and said the direct payment all of the action does assign the substantive right he just assigns a right to seek payment and the insurance company to pay their the recipient of the take of the the right payment claw and distinguished i think it was herman one which herman once that it is a substantive right that is that is being conveyed  i think where where the confusion was in his case i think whether the district court was confused is she treated it as a subject matter jurisdiction problem and it's not it's a statutory standing issue or the judge did a very very fine judge but she required us to prove at the initial pleading stage the invalidity of assignments and that just stands a federal civil specifically says that the court next mark is not dealing with rd party standing it's going to say that question for another day on the stand ok and i'm not talking about that i'm talking about the clarification that the court provided between law and sets up this dichotomy between what's actual article three constitutional jurisdiction and essentially everything else statutory the question that we're trying to deal with here is where to  perfect place for me to ask you you mentioned discovery in documents it seemed to me reading the district judge's opinion that an attachment of the assignments which you all would already have your client would have i assume might have been what she was looking for in order to overcome the hurdle because she does mention that the case had been replayed once or twice a couple of amendments and then she talks in a passage about the assignments have never been provided they never been attached statutorily required and required by the labor department regulations to provide the documents and comprise the basis of their claims and you know one of the main causes of action here is the way we're going to stop them that clearly relates we didn't have them at the time in order to produce them to the district court know we had the ok we had them with bentley not all d of them i think there were four that were ok you q no not provided something to that and not to jump too far ahead on your time line of your your argument here but how long a period of time had blue cross and blue shield paid for these particular services twenty years twenty years prior what about them this chlorine mining these claims they they did not these claims saying they were standing the main thing you look at is there's a call is there a cause of action and that's the main thing you look at and clearly we have a cause of action here which is governed by the face of the complaint under the under under this year this court held the blue cross waive any assignment of asians in its policy because d it made payments to communicate within companies on some claims it companies health solutions versus blue cross same thing we have here except our facts are much stronger we allege that blue cross paid these claims without testing dozens if not hundreds of times they never disclose and the assignment clauses have been not payment on the ground allege specifically paragraph thirty of the supplemental amended complaint and i quote blue cross verified each insured patients coverage for the treatment before the service was performing and express state law place claim waiver to stop on the court should we should consider i respectfully submit that position because it's exactly what we have here thank you very much and i think i'm out of town becky you've saved five minutes for a bottle assert that defense once the assignment itself is raised to us when a claim is paid at an initial matter in this case this take this case the forty six claims that issue they were denied because there was an exclusion in the policy that the nice anything system works of it's obviously easier for the provider to go ahead and put forth that claim to the insurance company and there's a whole process for that to work and the insurance company this case case because lots of the patients policy and makes  that if a medical provider who is not one of the union way to parties under reza this court was talking about just a moment ago which bucket do we put this and this of us on what where do we put a whistle which bucket that's because recess unique you've got three rely upon this one station to their detriment but extraordinary circumstance which has been this is defined as by that which has been said by the court or something like fraud or misleading them and we don't have any of that here judge judge did despite so on factors all that's left is do they have an action under the statu that case post lexmark said rd party standing is is is is prevention all standing for this court and that's what we're going to follow that's present in the supreme court did not go in there and footnote three judge dick's decision i in the in the lower court i think she was correct to consider this of the twelve the one we put on we made a factual attack the plaintiff complaint judge gave us the court recognized in the earlier  said in footnote thirty eight dollars but no three page eight they failed to come forward with any evidence that satisfied their burden of proof and it won't be one so we think she got that correct i've already talked about a stop all and why that argument doesn't work issue is purely the question of the assignment who are going to read you why wouldn't that naturally under lexmark fit as a statutory analysis rather than an other rather than as a could you do have that all wind of that was all interpretation and your point was i think that's why they have to prove the valid assignment why is that not all statutory i would i would i would disagree and i would say that it is not interpretation there is no top occasion that needs to and so the only way that a company like cell science can be before this court is if they stand in the shoes of someone else if they have standing and clearly they do not because of this these anti assignment for the asians which are valid and which  so under that premiss there are three of the constitutional standard would be required to be met would it not for constitutional standard if they have a valid the sign ok so that's that's the whole question addressability or now you can start to see your point that assignment essentially implicates one or more of those factors mot my my response you know it would be perhaps case dealt with an assignment and this in this court the th circuit said you don't have you don't have standing twelve you have dialysis and of those other cases as well is that you got dialysis and or other cases as well rather than the question was do i know  to dialysis deals with a direct paid authorization not an assignment and judge you are right next to a clear distinction between the two in the big diocese decision where i wanted to point out where in the opinion where systems operate well judge davis side of the sprint case and in this present case a debt with a history of assignments going back to the th century or the th century and said these are fundamental instruments of commerce that businesses rely on these sayings frequently and we're going to with an opposing assignments even though there was a serious question as to under the circumstances that case whether that the assigned or you know really was assigning anything but that's exactly what we have here assignments are just critical to the private health industry i mean patients go in every day and  to herman to which under the rule of ordinance or controlling precedence and they they dealt with at their santa clauses and they held that they're not going to apply to situations where  can sue can show to mislead we need discovery to to do that and we didn't even get the the the documents that pertain to the claim although they have a statutory regulatory obligation district court well why you want to apply mississippi case to a state law based cause of action want your plot louisiana law and she said well no no we're not going to you know she had a reason for but i think if you're going to plus the state base running on principally in herman is the fact that the herman coolants fell on the net did not apply the anti assignment clauses on the circumstances of a patient see seeking payment for health care benefits that wa