occupation policy that offered a legal specialty definition of disability and regular job the issue before this court is the definition of regular hours to find the policy and under arizona law and is that a question of the courts analysis i think is lawyer i think the district court ended up saying she was a part time generally beginner and then looks like maybe the defendants are the life insurance compan part time litigator general litigator what do we do if the district or you know is wrong is that harmless error absolutely not your honor in it was and also on the day her disability d she chose in apparently she was adamant that it was january st two thousand and seven should that have her in the record there there are numerous letters from the street internally to the insurance company providing a lengthy history of  no that's not how i would guess one occupation not only is that not reasonable but that supported bad state in that case so i see that i have five believe the district court relied upon to reach summary judgment decision because there is a lot of confusion about date of disability last trial litigated issues but here's what mr cheney admitted during the great judgment briefing regular job the district court i believe correctly compared her substantial material beauty between afterwards two thousand and five in january two thousand and seven and then her substantial material duties assume that it was december of two thousand sometime in december of two thousand that's that's correct judge i mean there are any basis to go back you know a year or judge nelson is not  did you look at that if you look at october two thousand and five in the trial work she just finished a trial of your the next day and subsequently she didn't have another trial so i mean isn't it part of the implied fear healing for response and her admission to our state the fact it's now crystallized for us what the real issue here is before the district court the facts in the record didn't change the facts in the record never change from the motion to the response the reply is the argument from those on the record that more crystallize or focus on got the reply the district court still have the same facts before him in the record but the district court apparently you agree i thought let's say she was if we're looking at the october two thousand and she's the you know the trial lawyer i'm trying to figure out how how is that the same as is me she called herself a initially a trial lawyer i asked her for information about her trials and she was a little bit confusing at st she gave us the wrong date we had to follow an interview but eventually we settle on october two thousand i have a different story here she claimed january two thousand and seven no but so that's an interesting point though so what i mean why don't you have an obligation as the insurance company i know you didn't pick the date for her which still wishes this case from the other one  some responsibility or they chose the date of disability now i understand that but it one thing if they did mention all of the october two thousand and five that she was or last trial there was a lot of discussion about whether or not you know and she said she d was a trial attorney i just trying to figure out what's the precedent here on so clear that we you would have gone with that date and i understand she was adamant about it but i just someone even if they're represented could and so we don't have a disputed issue of the journal fact about her disability date we don't have a disputed issue until about her duty or after that date she admits it i think that's where this case will be different than what you were perhaps thinking chose to apply for total disability benefits under her policy the advice of her counsel she chose our age and the policy to apply for if not the insurance companies are not in the business as just not reality frankly to be saying ok you want to apply again explaining her decline and health from two thousand and four onward and he offers two thousand and fourteen with the explicit understanding that this is for determining there's no question and so he offered this date really as a compromise it was you know they're going back and forth about the specific date of disability which from the initial claim application to multiple letters from return the explaining th that day once it was selected by the attorney and by the claimant well a couple reasons your honor number one date of disability is not a defined term in as it's it's not a it has no contractual significance the term alone nothing was the insurance company never suggested that the date would be used to define her regular job  date to calculate her benefits the policy defines regular job as the day before disability began not not the day before the date of disability chosen by the insurer that's not in there and in fact there are several places in the record both in deposition testimony from the claims adjuster to the insurance company's own guidelines in training materials that explicitly says the date of disability can be a moving target with these types of conditions and if you find information suggesting that the date offered by an attending physician or by the insurer is incorrect you might need to back date that date of disability which just goes to show regular job as defined on the policy was not that of a trial lawyer but a mediator or something other than a full time trial lawyer that just wasn't an issue it was it was raised in the reply for the st time lot the last thing i would like to mention about this admission and a summary judgment brief and there was a there was one statement of fact that the core that the defendant sees done and the core adopted