May have a loophole??

[Sunshine1]

We had a recent court appearance , but never made it in front of the judge.  Neither party wanted to see the outcome of that, so they worked it all out in a conference room.

We are pro-se and NCP/BM has a lawyer.  We were asking for medical expenses which she never denied throughout the whole thing that she owed it as well as insurance reinbursement.  The county and the lawyer determined the expenses were a wash from what she owed us to what we owed her and the following is what resulted.

In the final order that her lawyer has drawn up it says the following:

A. Petitioner's request for medical insurance reinbursement is denied.

B.Petitioner's request for  medical expense reinbursement is "withdrawn".

My question is with the "withdrawn" wording of that statement.

1. Does that mean we can ask for it again because it was withdrawn?  

2. Why wouldn't she put "denied"  instead of "withdrawn", have I found a loophole in her lawyer's wording of the order?

Thanks Soc!

[socrateaser]

Basically, the order withdraws your demand for expenses, and makes no ruling on respondent's demand for expenses. Thus, if she comes back leter looking for her money, you can raise the issue for your money again, washing out the debt. If you were denied, then she could come back and you would be SOL.