position we were in all religions because the merits of the appeal was never heard right and that you said in your praise but my question is so you did go back to court in november yes ma'am so what happened we had i have  a we have now submitted appeal briefs the trial court is the first level of appeal on christmas so what happened in the trial that we don't have a decision yet it's submitted for decision with  ok so you had a hearing but no decision comes proud briefing or something you're going we have it's it's actually appeal briefing because we didn't add any record at the trial court you can there it simply adds one level in any administration of ruling the first level of appeal goals to the district court in the district where that  that court as a one judge appeal court sits in referendum nothing really happened other than you telling the court that you were not going to submit any new money that's correct and the other side did not either go on so all of the briefs as of a he lost his license in louisiana on what from the very start everyone knew and had reported was an appealable issue with then for months he had that license back he's had it since then he has a cop day we'll argue that when that the those are the facts he did lose that license but when the loss of that license is as it was here the very start a fluid loss where he immediately took an appeal and got it back then was the time we should read into the statute and unless clause of lessons of his  and that's not in the statute what what it says is that the action has taken place he did lose his license without a doubt and seventy four into sound if you lose your licen you will be separating it's man right that's what the statute says i don't say that it's mandatory because judge you have to look at the reason for the loss of the license and then and then the penalty imposed must fall within tolerable limits a reasonable this if you have an employer who is doing a good job for you has gotten promotions his service has been good he actually has some skills that others don't have so you want to keep him if he gets into a problem that you know from the outset for example you know he's out for paradigm because of illness or whatever but he's going to be able to come back you don't terminate the services what they did here was that sheets and may not the employer doesn't say may be penalized and then the question is what's the penalty if there's may not be employed it is he could have been if you're out of police he could have been suspended that would have been a four month suspension only he could have been suspended he could have been placed in a position that did not require his license he could have worked as he did for the first two years for the v a without a license he could have worked under a licensed psychologist as a lesser person at a lesser pay all of those were available what they did here what the criteria was he said that in the record number two if you look at what he says it has nothing to do with the charges against him nothing it talks about the fact that  as a result of that in fact it's not even addressed in there because there isn't any promotion of the fish and sea of the of the service every time from the very start these people understood separated but if and only after all rights of appeal have been exhausted it doesn't but it also doesn't say judge that the separation has to be permanent the separation here could easily have been a apparently reinstated and doesn't play a role here that's correct your honor and my understanding is that in the state of louisiana it is customary to reinstate the license of a  professional files for an appeal of the license revocation so here it's merely a matter of custom that the license was reinstated and i would just not hasn't been reversed on the merits it has not your honor that's correct and that merits hearing is scheduled before the trial judge in louisiana counsel just said february my understanding from conversations with counsel for the louisiana state board of examiners of psychologists is that that hearing will does not provide for such an alternative penalties vention or any type of penalty that's an alternative to revocation the statute says that the medical professional may not be employed once his license was revoked  and that provision is also strengthened while it was revoked at the time that the agency in this case the department of veterans affairs removed him from his position it was experience and perhaps you'll get another position but not under the statutory language and your honor if i if i may just finish my point about the legislative history congress made clear that the purpose of the statutory provision is better and safety first and foremost  if you have a situation where a state automatically reinstates a license pending an appeal which is essentially with louisiana did here you can have a situation where an unethical or a dangerous medical professional can well it's not so much that i'm assuming guilt in as much as the state board already found that the license should have been revoked for cause and actually revoked that license so there was a full hearing there was a two day reasonable interpretation of that statute as demonstrated in the v a s handbook i think all that is clear the court cannot read into that statutory provision additional limitations that are not there what let me give  life rather than suspended but what if you had a circumstance in which there were no admission by a doctor that he had been accused of certain things the board revoked his license and later it turns out that all of those things he was accused of didn't occur and that therefore he had been improperly revoked by the state board stay for realizes that gives him his life back so there is no way to undo that that's what happened in terms of his determination best hypothetical person right there is no way to undo that under  the the provision of the statute i would note however that both the statute and the v a handbook did provide dr serrano with an opportunity to present this case to the v a before he was removed not that's correct and so the notice of proposed removal gave him an opportunity to present orally and in writing as well as submit evidence to the v a and the the v a handbook also provides for an opportunity to seek review by the network director which is a level above that individual who are who removed dr sancha from this position so in that hypothetical a medical professional could argue to the v a that  the license revocation was incorrect and therefore not for cause and perhaps either the individual who makes that decision or the network director would reach a result that the revocation swank also has presented an argument of retaliation essentially saying that the v a removed him not because of the license revocation but because  it was retaliating against him for filing in complaint and here that argument is not persuasive because the the the m s b be administrative judge determined as a factual matter that there was no retaliation the administrative judge weight the testimony of all the witnesses and concluded that the official that actually moved up there so long i was unaware of the e e o c complaint prior to remov that these factors exist in order to determine if the penalty is appropriate whether the charges are appropriate and the directive here says well i looked at all of that what he found here he talks about charges as  only one trying hard and then he says there's professional and ethical misconduct none of those are charged here loss of louisiana weiss's is the sole charge here and it what happens here yeah i'll comment on something that one of the judges asked about reinstatement of a license in louisiana by the district court sitting is the first level of appeal is my rule do show cause it's discretionary as to what the judge will allow that or not and here the judge did allow it he can or cannot it's up to him it can't it's an order that will stay in you would think it would at least during appeal the license for remain at least the spend rather than the other way around the theory judge is that the licensing board is a politically appointed