different audit that you were pursuing after the keep them action was filed a different nature is what i understood the district and don't we have to review that for substantial evidence so  requirement it's taxed there is no preclusion requirement and it's taxed it broadly refers to any alternate remedy and it does not exclude remedies that are dressed in the same type of misconduct which is what the government is urging  second the record before the court the discovery the facts the party stipulation which is important and the just records findings all demonstrate that after ms guardiola filed this case the governing patient disconnected series  discreet audit efforts authorized by one year contracts contracts in accomplished or dozens of a d r s additional document requests which is what the recovery on a contractor uses to reclaim the proceeds that the government agrees were excluded from the settlement and the settlement amount because they were previously were covered by the government the government says there's no evidence the government says that the that the suit did not cause the government act any differently in response to the hypothetical that was posed but there is no evidence of the governed decision making here we did speak to representatives of the rather than i can i ask a question about that because my understanding  then that this was the it was the same requests that were being made after that were being made before can you give us an example where it did change the government's behavior here so i can give you example were changed the government's behavior but i can't tell you didn't so we find out but if if if the government is sending out its request has been doing for two years and it's just continuing in that same process which with all d respect that seems to be exactly what's going on here i mean i'd like to hear from you as to why the government took a different approach after two thousand and twelve that would be important to me but i don't get you well i think we're talking about two different things so what what the rock was doing did not change as result of this lawsuit but what the rock was doing was looking varies depending on on who the provider is but in terms of the provider here they were getting here on dating thing just to clarify your position is those twenty thousand two hundred and sixty pages of new issues was in your opinion prompted by the keep them action you know that two hundred and sixty pages of issues was was prepared by the rock with its negotiations with the government those issues are entirely separate aren't entirely separate issues but if if the government is going to is going to have this court agree that the type of misconduct is excluded anything along those two hundred and fifty dollars pages would bar any kind of ready for the relator and in does bar the relator recovery of the single damages on the actual damages that the the defending hers and in this case the government has agree that the defendant would have been titled should all set for whatever money they would say the doctor requests that we list a certain number of claims to the provider so the provider gets a list of claims for which they're asking for information they are not saying to the provider this is what we think is wrong they are sending send us more information about these claims and so every time a doctor requests goes out the government is questioning specific claims and those claims change every single time dr buss goes out and in this if i understand your honor's question correctly we're trying to be consistent in our point of view we all believe that the relator should be entitled to it portion of what the government recovered before the relator filed her kitchen case however after individual claims and those individual claims it doesn't reflect on the spreadsheet and i would disagree with the government in this but it doesn't reflect on the spreadsheet that it was tied to a specific issue it does say for instance in patients that just tells you that the claim was an inpatient claim and in these cases we went through with the district court a very very specific identification of the claims that would be involved in yes your honor it is because in this particular instance we have new contracts new audit new claims and as the district court found there was no ongoing audit the record soundly rejected that as a factual your honor i think the false claims act as designed every government i think it allows the government a lot of leeway i think the government can do with the government wants but i think the alternate remedy provisions designed to protect the relator when the government chooses as it intervene in the related proceeds that reward congress determine jumps to twenty five percent is a minimum and thirty percent is a maximum and i find it very hard to believe that congress was increasing the rewards and recognition of the risk and incentivizing money for these claims because their response would be we already paid the government and so that's an offset to our liability as the government agrees that it is the only dispute is over whether or not the relator is intelligent sure of that and  remedy and it's the remedy that was precluded here because she cannot get a remedy and those claims for which the government had recovered money after he turned his was one i see that i'm over time if you have any other questions i'd be happy to during discovery of the case we have taken from medicare a list of claims from you know under certain parameters and then we agreed with the defendant we had a process where we agreed as to the specific claims that would fall within the case and there was we agreed with those claims and were we then discover that some of these claims had already been recruited by the government and that's how we ended up here