law that held that met life's interpretation of the opposite provision was legally correct despite these findings and there's undisputed evidence the district court nonetheless determine the midwife had abused its discretion and there were kids references in both the summary plan description and b are you arguing that he doesn't have to actually receive it he only needs to elect to receive or is your argument that it that he received it's about your  out in our reply brief i mean it i think is a five step process and it's just it's far too tenuous a logical exercise to get from the summary plan description to i regulations in a publication that was not mentioned in the summary plain description and which which answer a different question i mean those onerous regulations and the special tax notice that metlife provides to participants like mr thompson mine is that what the tax implications are when they elect to receive their pension plans if i did well but the r is determines that this rollover is a circumstance where you find it was an abuse of discretion on the was done i think that when you look at the discretion that the minister happens and the cases that talk about the application of thing that was not addressed in mr thompson's brief is any sort of knowledge worker explanation for how the score needs to look at the documents issued because we have a master plan document that  from three different circuits including the sort as well as to cases from district courts and to michigan which on florida that specifically say it's not unusual for the summertime description to constitute the plan or to provide the operative language for a particular component benefit when you've got a welfare benefit plan that has many different benefits now kohler you say that color is has just as unique facts and so we got two documents that conflict with each other or that have internal conflicts and we just don't have that here we're talking about one condition that only appears in the summary plan description because that's the only place to operate language for this particular benefit appears and so the cases that deal with documents where the plan and the summary points for trying are separate distinct documents and the conflict between the two i but the argument but in the purpose of the summary point of description the kind of put in layman's terms what may otherwise appear in the plane yes your honor in the summertime description here that is but that is one of the problem thompson brings forth what essentially divest claims ignorance triggers of anybody to exercise discretion when their documents are set up like ours are which is not an uncommon proposition if you look at the cases that are collected in the rare case that we cited including a twenty one case out of this court dudley could you please respond to this if the red brief says the clause elect to receive must mean something different  provided from the virus and pension plan if benefits provided from the brize and pension plan were always offset from long term disability benefits then the clause if you elect to receive them would be rendered meaningless how  well i think this is a really important thing so no i agree your honor on the one we want to be on policy considerations behind granting  it promotes skin for many predictability and efficiency ok i'm not asking a policy question i'm asking is a clause rendered meaningless under your client's interpretation that's really benefits as well as pension benefits is going to be looking at both summary plans for actions to see how that's going to shake out and by tracking the way which fund the pension plan summary plans for action in the offset provision and the q why it's why isn't the note in the singletary case that a three is a possibility for this claim not to the contrary it's pled and so what will be an issue is you can only get one recovery but you can plead alternative theories for the same recovery and it doesn't appear that singletary actually prohibits that where it was in deep lead as a leading issue i think that the  twenty twelve now the color one cases looks to the statute and regulations governing how sorry plan descriptions are supposed to be prepared and that analysis has  legal rules the doctors typically government given situation with no agreement state of ours so corgan on the observer that quote ignoring those rules is likely to frustrate the parties in turn and probably takes account of the background legal rules governing in this case so replan descriptions when faced with an issue of interpretation where someone point scripture so cold holding remains valid in s one reasonable interpretation and that is for the horizon pension plan under us airways you have to look at the background legal rules governing the rise in pension plan and a variety pension plan and there's a four one eight one and it was created by the tax bill and the very same tax code creates this trustee to trustee transfer you have to if you're for want a plan you have to allow a direct rollover arias pointed out the clause if you will like to receive them must mean something different than benefits merely provided from the rising pension plan so in that case it's clear that if benefits are paid from the pension plan it's counts as an offset this summer plan description creates an additional requirement it's not just paid from the pension plan and the claimant has to do something else the claimant has to elect to receive another summer point description like this one is part of pla benefits through a different legal argument that would be so called repackaged point that's not what happened  he was given a choice he could leave his pension benefits in the pension plan and let him riding tall age sixty five the plan document clearly allows him he's got an option withdrawing at the end of every month after he referenced i rest publication five seventy five and he said this is a direct role and he had the money mail directly to the financial institution which by law is a trust so all that having two different benefit packages for this thirty plus year employee and so the way it's different here is the additional act of relying on the summary plan description to in which there was a one lead benefit claim first and only after the supreme court found that they want the claim was not going to be successful that opened the door to then looking at a three different language so in one cases it's called pay or benefits under any one be under three it's inevitable surcharge but to be made whole the optimal surcharge equals on either way you get to the same point as the court entered in the judge and so the actual dollars and cents come out the same under either the benefit claim or the other will see a surcharge claim and so there's really no election remedy manifestations of the party's intent here an argument as with the brief is the other documents regulating the long term disability benefits plan and pension quoted the eighth circuit instruction with a difference between bringing a claim for benefits under the plan which is that it will be claimed versus bringing a claim for equitable relief in there and i'll quote mrs on page fo shown the requisite certainly don't we you are position is of course of the summary plan description is not misleading but we also don't think that there is sufficient evidence of causation of harm for the reasons we laid out