contributing causes in stage parkinson's disease however in the rest of that box it is state contributing cause it says but not resulting in the cause was did above that's ambiguous you are how can end stage parkinson's parkinson's disease within the various medical records attached to the moving papers in some cases i saw references to the severe i don't remember if i saw the word advanced i don't there was no testimony taken as to particularly i would say that the pneumonia is the sole proximate cause of death your honor i'm sorry if i'm in my pause i guess is that i'm arguing that the pneumonia is a result of being immobilize not arguing that his parkinson's disease caused the fall so if you take that away then you have their only argument being that his parkinson's disease caused him to be weaker or more susceptible to a pulmonary infection dr gamble is response to their letter asking whether there was any disease to which he referred to the parkinson's disease causing and causing the weakening of the pulmonary system and that's their best evidence your honor and that's where i sit on my argument on the factual dispute you have contrary to that the attending physician statement of dr carlson which mill where mentions parkinson's disease although he's certainly well aware of it because it's in his his medical records the references to it when he's asked by jaycee's many specifically what the cause of death is it's pneumonia when when the answer to the question is are there any contributing events he lists the broken hip and he never sa advanced age is not sufficient to invoke the cause of death is being caused by the weakened condition to prevent coverage and if you look at the dickerson case which this very same arizona supreme court decided in the very same year as reaver an individual who had galut was found to not be deprived of the benefits of a disability policy with similar language simply because he was asymptomatic in the disease at the a viable claim can benefit that should go to trial on a first it's really important to me that are that both parties acknowledged to the district court that griever was the rule of law even in their motion for a new trial didn't argue that the court should be considering a different standard or applying griever in a different way in fact plaintiff's motion for new trial at page three which is fifty three and i quote stated the a pleasurable law is as found in griever in page nine honor and this is why first of all when you look at the political rule being a preexisting disease cooperates with death there is no accidental death coverage on the facts of this case there is no events then there will be coverage and they basically said that recovery may be had under this new rule in montana even though the disease appears to have actually contributed to the cause of death as asthma and heart condition basically created a weakness that when the chest trauma occurred the treating physician testified that the blow to the chest was the contributing factor that produced death so there's about four tests but for the accident he was going to die right then and the and basically the court said that doesn't matter because the medical evidence shows that the preexisting disease weekend his created the fertile field is what the what the treating physicians t fertile field for the pneumonia and cooperated with the accident to cause death the same is true in the watkins case also decided by the awesome supreme court where there was the arterial plaque that restricted the  arteries that could tributed to causing this fatal blood clot but was also the fact that he was running around chasing steers that he got in a way that led to the increased love flow that caused the fatal blood clot in this case again we have a in the attachment to our statement of facts it is are if you're interested see i thirty four exhibit dr harris explained that yes he was he had trouble walking parkinson's disease weakens your respiratory system they are subject to repeated pneumonia but we did not try to debate that the that the parkinson's caused the fall or that the parkinson's cause an ammonia because people can get pneumonia without parkinson's disease the and in his separate report that the fall basically compromised his respiratory status which was already weakened by parkinson's disease leading to pneumonia and respiratory you would expect it but what is startlingly odd is that this parkinson's expert wrote up a report that says yes he had parkinson's but offers absolutely no evidence on the vital issue whether or not the parkinson's played a role in the increasing to death and if i might quote from the greek her case the vital question is whether pneumonia was induced solely by a may well have caused the pneumonia in fact the basically the court said that the testimony was that the blow to the chest was a contributing factor that produced death but the vital question was whether or referring to the very last sentence of that report describes the initial event as the fall with the cascade of events that followed leading to the pneumonia  was well aware of the parkinson's disease noted in her report but it is not the initial event so she is by at least inference excluding the parkinson's certainly if these doctors had all been deposed this would have been addressed more thoroughly but that's what you have from the documents he conflict between what the insurance company points to and dr gridlock letter when you compare it with the attending physician statement and dr may hands report as released from the hospital and two or three months later comes back with pneumonia which the testimony according to the opinion the case generally if it's a traumatic pneumonia it develops within a short time of the pneumonia they're distanced in time from the event does not seem to  automobile accident so if you have the known it is not traumatic and it's not associated the automobile accident seems more likely associated with in fact according to that case the testimony the only testimony on the cause was that it was from the  the existing disease we do not have that here you are we have pneumonia developing while he's in the hospital in fact he's examined the davies admitted and there's no evidence of pneumonia and the evidence of pneumonia is the very next day that there's evidence that exists that exists by virtue of comparison of the attending physician statement and dr may hansa caon if you look at the three parts of that group or test while my initial thought was that part of the was what applied when i look at dickerson i i wonder if maybe you could make an argument that part of a applies but if we take part b and say why isn't it that the disease is caused by the immobile  result of the hip fracture j c penney's company would say yes but that existing disease cooperates because we know from dr gribble his letter that he has resistance was weakened but if you look at correctly it says merely having weakened resistance doesn't invoke that