p contracted for blaine mcgill's claims in this matter and this case doesn't arise out of any cause of action at law either rises soley out of the causes of action that are created by the settlement  agreement and this is one of the one of the main things in the reason why the judgment of the district court should be reversed is because a district court made a error at law when it said that this was a toxic tort case in addition to that error the district court did not make a reasonable assessment of the evidence and abuses discretion when it excluded dr stockers opinions the district court did not give any of it made just simple mistakes not simple but made mistakes of what dr stogies testimony was the information upon which doctors dogma relied and misapplied the toxic to this court has seen multitudes of appeals coming out of the b p oil spill and the settlement agreements or business claims i'm unsure and i believe that this is the  opportunity the court has had to review what are known as back in litigation option class members or it may be but as you say and i would doubt seriously there's any aspect that  is where in front of a panel but i take your point and just stuart that's that's an important point because this settlement agreement is controlled by general maritime law and it specifically is states and the settlement agreement that that's what controls b p admits that it's controlled by general maritime law but then b p wants to use a what they call an ordinary toxic tort standard to evaluate judge stockers opinions which that standards not imported into the settlement agreement specifically biased terms this court and they'll i think it's lake eugene case which is a b p case affirmed what has long been held  maritime law cases and a maritime contract tester beet red specific to its terms on the words that appear on the page and you don't look outside the terms of that contract and that's what this is  reverse order st dealing with you know your expert because i mean that same is going to key the key to the kingdom for you you know with no experts it's sort of like over so not backing away from the for but this seems like you know one of the garden variety determinations products got a made under dog but is he qualified is his opinion informed by what the cases say so go to the heart of it you know the law isn't that f cut to the chase you know what the arguments or and the judges exclude him saying not that he didn't have credentials but that he didn't wasn't armed with the essential knowledge about the  units listen i'm misunderstanding it that's the deal he has so i'm just trying to get to does not abandon your arguments but just cut to your home run on why given an abuse of discretion saying that dr none of the studies that dr stockmann relied upon demonstrated the core exit core exit dispersion cause human harm well that's just not the case dr stockmann relied on more than twenty five studies in this opinion he relied on twelve studies specifically about dispersants and oil exposure and two particular cases two studies in which he relied upon which are cited in the record demonstrate that the these dispersants caused the exact harms that blaine mcneil is claiming so judge to roll its assessment of the evidence that none of the studies support dr opinions is just wrong  judged or all of then went on to make findings that dr stockard doesn't have any opinions regarding the specific levels of exposure now that wraps back into the toxic tort general maritime law aspect of this argument but even even so the two studies in which i'm referring to which dr stockmann are relied upon specifically say that these harms occur it's zero to zero you keep they you get you have a you shown a connection problem d i am judge and i'm sorry no it's ok if you know the sin and dr stockmann relied upon the m s g s from now co from b p he relied upon information from the centers for disease for the assessment of the evidence judged or all of makes other findings regarding doctor dr stock nurse information of exposure well that's that again analysis may find that there it is the settlement agreement is ambiguous to the extent that the settlement agreement says exposure need not be proven and may not be litigated that's in settlement agreement but ambiguity i'm not sure the court can get a look at that but that's not the crux of this of this argument the crux of the argument is that judge to roland and abused his discretion and making findings to exclude dr that are contrary to the evidence to contrary to his testimony and it's coming to grasp in a nutshell so you can go back to the tags you talk to or are in a nutshell when you say when we look at the record and we look at the oil studies that you've alluded to that doctors starting to i don't we're going to be compelled to the conclusion that the trial judge to be used his discretion in excluding dr dogma that to bottom line yes you honor and that's supported by the breath of case law under dog about you know particularly kumo tire and all of those lines of cases that the dog standards are flexible and you have to apply  parola made an error in the application of law which is what informed the rest of his decision he says that this is a toxic tort case it's not a toxic toward case it is a contract case by using a more exacting standard i want to say the specific and general causation standard which b p has advocated that's one of the reasons i believe that provisions of the constitution and hayes versus a w justice and which is a out of district opinion is informative here because it hayes was a multi district litigation matter it was an asbest case against northrop grumman in we cited it in our materials but what was important in hayes is that the court made the same analysis that i'm advocating it said that in order to for the pla to prove asbestos exposure under maritime law the plaintiff had to show that the plaintiff was in contact with the product and that they and that that contact substantially caused his injuries and that the exposure to the asbestos had to be real or actual and that it had to be supported by the facts of witness testimony from rd parties or testimony from the claimant and that's exactly what we have here and that's what the contract says that's what the kind that the general maritime law is what the contract imports it doesn't import the toxic torah law as as b p has argued if b wanted it to b p could have written whatever it wanted to considering that it had to be approved by judge bar b a and and representative council but if they wanted the standard that they advocate now they could have written it in the contract but that's not what they put and his and the basis for which dr stockmann gave his opinion dr stockmann here is not he's not a he's not an unknown well respected internal medicine areas in the areas of in many different cases on both sides for both claimants and multitude of and i believe that the evidence shows that his opinions were reliable and were looking at reliability not waiting credibility with that a c i have a little time left but unless there's another question oh rest on my r yes just steward it appears he was having some network issues where he would get some packet loss when he would freeze but then it would pick back up in the back and it looks like it is his connection and it's not  in us well even in my not my image own i'm a big screen you know out of show for example mr hicks is images sort of frozen then back up to kim has to freeze and you it's clear and it's king or cool it well software gets freeze and now so you know you know i'm on the big screen and so i'm showing this phrase an action that isn't typically there so this would be me ask about is there a connection is sho