arbitrary and capricious applies here given that the people providing them benefits are the same as the people making the decision on the benefits a certain inherent conflict of interest oh well first under the big the case law including glen for the structural conflict of interest on the tariff that there might be a structural conflict of interest or in this case as you said it does pay benefits and make the decision does not and anyway show that the insurer actually was influenced by this structural conflict now because first of the medical reviewers as your images describe them the medical manager but at the end of the day it's the disability benefits manager whose job it is to take what the medical leave the rest say and what the plan terms say and to interpret the plan terms and apply both pieces of the puzzle to come up with a formal decision and communicate that formal decision to the not be entitled to benefits and that being the improvised look backward when you announced to him for the first time in the appeal denial letter so there's obviously no nothing in the administrative record that would claim with documentary support for disability under his own uk disability period correct and in cash to nurses and other people to look at the run through the period his claim and if you were i'm satisfied with that you had the opportunity to ask at the time he made the claim form for either information wanted to buy additional adjutants could be making for step mom and step two and step three and it's ok to go through medication and yet you do say that it's hard to go back and in sure i'm not quite certain why at birth to have adopted a policy like that you just described the costs of  good morning america please the court there are two things that are very clear from this record one is that the determination here turned on the clear existing condition clause as the court has just indicated to its questions there is medical information pay benefits does the insurer have the chance now to raise sea issue of any occupation i thought you had recognized i'm barred for example it's clause really unfair to say to somebody you need to go back out and prove that your condition was two years ago because we screwed up and didn't put you on notice that you had to continually be providing evidence to us so i think in the context of this case given the factors the court has looked at before in terms of the unfairness of that when they go back and virtually actively establish that you are disabled the nature of that condition and i think it's fair to say this court also has condition clause i'm not certain that employees would have been happy with that reading don't think they were going to find say a witch doctor why not he went for purposes of diagnosis and treatment of the lesion which is exactly what this man did  we've asked you a lot of questions is there any point you would like to make in your remaining one minute yes thank you donna as i discussed earlier about the proper there is no justification or explanation as to what that is now and own further we also say argue that if use of discretion for the judge to have a word or prejudgment interest in this action because one when a man should have been done to there's no found