united health care you know that health care brought out a series of companies she started working at allstate allstate was borne out by someone else and then they were drawn up by someone else who alternately  flooded out by united hope you're essentially my client stayed at the same desk river i t of companies for thirty two years she was a longstanding report and as a result of that operation she developed a disease called complex regional pain syndrome had over two hundred doctors appointments this continued throughout her period of working at united health care she the doctors appointment not obviously affecting her ability to do work and she applied one was created to temporary disability while on temporary disability she continued to see doctors and in this day and age when you see a doctor very sheet treated herself basic not herself but she treated based on what her doctors told her to do if it got to the point where she was being helped by p m i members just to get through the day she would have both her mother her sister for to her own daughter help she filed a claim with united health care and they said well we'll put you on permanent disability we don't think you're ever going to be able to come back and you know on are employed they even paid for and they helped her appeal the process and that the under the appeals process she received the letter and said you're denied you have no more april first i believe of two thousand or excuse me april third of two thousand and fifteen and that becomes a critical date because but in the meantime she brings as she files the suit and the suit is filed in front of judge oh paul meyer who makes a ruling on this case there's never been any testimony there's that she braces up a recall clinic in her original complaint and the recall claim is that i work for this company put thirty two years for thirty two years they said i or a specific amount but that was part of the deal you know when i when i when i said you know you get two weeks of vacation why b k should doesn't come out of every single pa please the court jacqueline hearing on behalf of standard insurance company and united health group the district court in this case correctly dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit when after multiple opportunities to amend plaintiff failed to state any legally buyable claim she was unable to do so despite to the court allowing her opportunities to manage her a risk the claims are time barred her state law claims are korea empted by a risk and she failed to allege any element of any meaningful rico claim the district court was correct to dismiss the lawsuit and that judgment should be up this group policy like most group policies includes the same three year contractual time limit that is consistently been found to be both a reasonable and appropriate to apply interest in matters it and for the first time now today we heard plaintiff even was well aware that there was a three year time limit and apparently even though she was aware she somehow miscalculated that was not an argument that has ever been raised at any time before but the three year contractual time limit the supreme court tells us that parties can also contract for when that claim accrues and this particular provision as do most of these provision accru based on when proof of loss is either provided or required and in this case at that triggering date was july twelfth of two thousand and thirteen the contractual limitation period expired july twelfth of tw plaintiff failed to file her lawsuit until almost a year later in may of twenty seventeen and that lawsuit is plainly time barred under the policy plaintiff argued below it shouldn't say argued plaintiff made in a conclusory allegation and below that equitable tolling should apply due to mental disability but she failed to allege any facts that would establish equitable tolling based on mental illness under the law equitable tolling requires that she in fact be prevented from filing suit within the statute of limitations and as counsel just pointed out she did a number of things on her own she apparently applied for social security the record tells us that she prosecuted a lawsuit along with her attorney she signed a verified complaint she submitted her own administrative appeal she was taking a number of actions to pursue her legal rights and under the law of equitable tolling mental illness is only a basis for tolling it in matter prevents the individual from manuf from managing their affairs and thus from understanding their legal rights and acting on them and mr joseph clearly does not meet standard in this case based on the record evidence but additionally she failed to allege any facts that would in fact establish that she met that standard and the district court was correct in dismissing and or her failure to satisfy the contractual timely the state law claims in this case are prevented are preempted by arista plaintiff has said numerous times that she does not implicate that her claims do not implicate any duty outside of a recession and a risk broadly pre amps all claims that are seeking benefits or damages for denial of benefits and that's what her claims do in this case and therefore those state law claims are prevent preempted by arista her rico claim failed to allege any element of any viable claim for rico and the district review it it's hard to even say what the biggest one is your honor there were none of the elements were alleged there was no pattern of activity that was alleged there were no predicate acts alleged with any degree of specificity there were no damages alleged and not a single there was no independent enterprise or an organization what we have is two contract importance here there is no criminal enterprise none was alleged no scheme was alleged no predicate acts there is just no allegation of anything that would support a simple rico criminal enterprise allegation in this routine or receive benefits claim between with a contract between an employer and an insurance company the district court correctly dismissed this complaint and correctly exercised her discretion to dismiss the clinton miss the complaint with prejudice when after plaintiff was granted multiple attempts to amend she continued to fail  continued to be an able to stay any viable cla decision basically says that she can't be you cannot be a victim of a scheme to defraud customers or premium payments that she never paid or was never required to pay again we take issue had an opportunity to explore day you want her to do that you've got to do discovery you've got to be able to find out how many other people are put in this position how many late people are are told th