issue in this case based on the court's inquiry is is there any evidence of the zone in which mr barnett or the other jobs exist and there isn't there is simply no substantial evidence to support the vocational determination by the the location four times and there was no response they then concocted a lie to say that the location responded the reality is the decision the language in the letter is like any other quasar judicial determination they quote the standard which is the plan and they say we've met the standard but analytically like any other quiz i judicial determination you have to show that is an evidentiary basis for that determination in order to show an evidentiary basis for that determination you have to know coastal northwestern whatever they are they stories owns you have to go back to work in the zone you used to work in they identified two jobs one of the jobs was a customer service person who they say works in a call center they don't tell you where the call centers are they're not in seminole frey but if they said that there was a call center in the zone that was in the zone with an ovary is they've covered that but there's no evidence where the call centers are from my knowledge and it's not the record the call centers are in the indian empire they're in santa you know san bernardino they're in riverside their hundred miles away from san onofre likely but there's nothing in the evidence likely they're not in the zone the other job they said was telephone operator they don't say where that zone is likely there are don't such jobs being used in southern california edison in the last twenty years because this technology but but we know that they contacted the supervisor that formally supervised barnett they the burden not the burden but the reality is there's a there's an absence of evidence i thought the two thousand and ten appeals denial letter specifically noted that it was confirmed that his work restrictions could be accommodated it's an know it says that but there's no evidence in the record that shows that the evidence in the record is to the contrary the evidence in the record shows that on four occasions they contacted the supervisor and four times he did not respond the evidence the record shows that in response to that the supervisors at southern california evidence said yes we can use the statement that the job would be accommodated there is just no position available as this means he does not meet the planned definition of l t d which does not include the job being available in other words they decided to say the job to be accommodated when there's no evidence that the supervisor said it could be accommodated if the supervisor had responded and said yes i can accompany that would be reasonable level and stick support their conclusion when the supervisor didn't respond four times that can't be evidence that he could be accommodated he never said yes he never said no we never respond that they keep talking about is the company the defendant right we can accommodate him at this location i don't understand why you say that's not evidence that's the company's promise so to speak that well then it can and will accommodate their but the decision went on to say the letter doesn't have to mention anything about the job availability but maybe modify it a bit not to say he's expected to report back to work right away they they say don't tell him to come back to work because there's no jump they obviously mean that there's no way to accommodate his disability and again logically you'd have since the e mail the supervisor four times they're jumping to the conclusion without any evidentiary basis because if they had a factual which barnett should've worked but also like to address my second issue which is a social security determination first and foremost this court has held repeatedly that it's critical evidence to consider and it's an abuse of discretion not to do so the edison plant did not address the evaluated barnett's records mention the social security award the burden that this court is established in montoro and it's a lonely is that they have to address why there's a different conclusion given that they got the money from the social security ward they require apply for it they got he was renewed for social security twice and it was a central issue in his appeal their position is we can ignore the substantial evidence and not address it they did not address it that's an abuse of discretion so reviewing it is not sufficient nine hundred pound gorilla in the room and fails to address that you would reverse their academic ways i judicial capacity they should address all the evidence thirty sure i'd like to address the kind of simply a policy issue there they are sitting here as is judges in effect the pursued social security benefits he would be doing it for him part them they recovered one hundred seventy five thousand dollars over the course of nine years because he received social security benefits in order to receive social security benefits he had to establish he couldn't do his own job or any job in the national economy there gaming the system to use judge fernandez as a statement by arguing now that he can work when they argued and they won for nine years the concept of pretty obviously has been adopted by the marilyn monroe case and in other courts there is no rational basis for addison to be allowed to come forward and argue in this case after receiving benefits for nine years based on requiring barnett to pursue her to benefits that he's capable of working at a minimum they should be required to show why there's a difference there new evidence they hire vestigal they look at his conduct they develop a record the medical evidence is virtually identical the medical evidence of the social security determination and v l t determination is virtually identical and essentially indistinguishable but the evidence is not the issue the issue is in judicial stoppel we presented an argument of a b and c that for example that barnett was incapable of doing any job in the national economy time but i'm saying if there's new information that comes to their attention right they are allowed to consider that new information but the new information didn't change anything barnett social security determination was reestablished he was he was extended for social security in two thousand and nine circumstances they're not we made a mistake but they they were allowed to prevail on the theory that barnett's incapable of performing a job and now when his advantages to them they flip one hundred eighty degrees if they had articulated a factual basis for doing so new evidence new facts but there are new evidence there is none yes they did an investigation but they didn't find anything there's no difference there determinations are virtually identical medically determinations of the social security administration so those three points compel the conclusion that barnett was denied that the decision to terminate his benefits was an abuse of discretion thank you very much  extraordinary my son is doing the constitutional rights foundation my trial program this week and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that he's working with would not appear to satisfy appellants goals in this case but we will dig one more time into the details and let me start with seven zero for you heard from appellants counsel that there's no evidence in the record of the zone that the job loken so what is that ok well the plan says that you have to be offered a job in the zone where you last worked when they called where he last worked the santa know free nuclear plant and made that inquiries so whichever zone that is that's where he last worked i going to show you that the santa no free nuclear power plant has not moved so there was an inquiry made in the plan by by the administrator to the employer at the location where he worked now it is correct that if you look at the record at pages one fifty eight thr satisfy the terms of the plan there is nothing in the receipt that says that every single solitary conversation whether it be verbal or written has to be documented what we know by looking at what is documented is that the plan made an inquiry to the job location where he last worked and then the plan he should decide decision saying that a reasonable job was available in a reasonable job as defined by the plan as a job that is in the zone where he last worked there is no affirmative evidence that those the four jobs initially and the two jobs ultimately when the supplemental evidence was produced are not available in the zone where he worked and when conversation is a conversation about whether the job has to be open that would imply that the job exists but is not open and the plaintiffs the appellant's argue vociferous lee in their brief that he actually has to be offered a job in order to be removed from disability and i think that's important for a couple of reasons because what the opponents have done in this case i have every stage is to try to impose requirements on a risk of plans that simply don't exist it is simply not a requirement as i indicated a moment ago for every single conversation to be diary this court and the district court is supposed to look at the entirety of the record it is simply not a requirement that people remain on disability unless a job is open and available that would mean that if an employer was suffering financial distress they couldn't take anyone off of disability because there were no open jobs available that's not what a recess says that plans the plan says that you have to be able to do the job no where in the plan does it say that we have to offer you the job again what is the task of the appeals committee at edison of the district court to review the record as a whole for substantial evidence you would think  appellants briefs that we were siding with the one doctor against seven but actually the plan decision sides with the seven doctors versus one of course there is new evidence in the record dr schwartz a surgeon didn't i any of mr barnett that's new that wasn't available to the social security administration and of course there is nothing in our recent that suggest that a resupply hands need to keep people on disability until the united states social security administration decides that they should be taken off or worse it doesn't say that anywhere and to suggest that it does is to suggest that a risk his goals are somehow subordinated to the goals of the soldiers agree that if there were no new evidence if it was the virtually identical record then there would be a stop because that's the argument that i had with your adversary he says there is nothing new it's the same record you took one position and benefited from it now you're turning around and disowning it so you say there weapons that's fine but if there isn't and you agree with your adversary that the century is stopped now i don't i would not agree with out for the millions that was the same record even if it was the same record and i think that's because i don't think there is anything that the purpose of coordination of benefits in orissa plans and disability plans generally is to prevent someone from unduly profiting by getting disability payments for multiple listeners said it's true that you were to apply and you benefited to the tune of one hundred seventy five thousand for nine years administration is essentially looking at the treating physicians notes and the treating physician in the dr davis admittedly kept saying that mr barnett could not work and that he could never work forever anything new other than the i am me well we have the opinions of i guess the question is what constitutes a new when you look at a medical record that's hundreds of pages long and you give it to three narrow neurologist and three orthopedic surgeons and they apply their expertise to that so my people say that's not new that's just more of the same but we have seven doctors out of eight that say that looking at the objective medical evidence the tests the records the medications that he can do jobs in this limited capacity and that is different from what his treating physician says will be the opinions in them the of the opinions are certainly new and the i am me which was and first person examination is new and the vocational assessment by mr meyer is new that is not that was not part of the social security record as far as i'm aware so that's another piece of evidence that his new but even if nothing was new i don't think that again coordination of benefits is to prevent moral hazard in applying for disability benefits i don't think that requiring someone to apply for social security benefits if they have another disability policy to disclose that other disability policy and to make sure that someone isn't make more money sitting on the sidelines than working which isn't for the benefit of my cum of my client edison it's for the benefit of the plan and the participants in the plan to make sure that the money is there there for them to all of those reasons that's why we have coordination of benefits and the record looked at is the whole again abus discretion abuse of discretion substantial evidence looking the record as a whole it's simply overwhelming if you if you take a look at the potshots that have been taken at this record and i don't mean to use that productively but the ones that have been made of trying to find a way to get mr parr net back on disability it's extraordinary the appellant argued that there wasn't consideration given to the medications he was taking virtually every doctor talked about the medications he was taking and what impact that would have on his ability to work out was the third argument your adversary raised you should answer he said there's nothing that shows that the reviewers explained the rationale for disagreeing with the social security records that they have to give a reason so two of them mentioned having read but they don't explain nobody ever explains well i think that their denial letters on the record of the whole give the context and the basis for why the benefits were denied  didn't explain why they reject the social security determination i don't know if that's in the letter and i'm not sure that that is required certainly if you look at the six doctors who reviewed this they considered the opinion of the treating physician which is basically the sole and exclusive basis for the social security associate for the social security administration's provision of benefits and they say why other evidence is more compelling and so i think that within the context of those six analyses one of which was an eighteen page single spaced record of you i think there is that explanation and mr barnett and his attorneys have had access to this administrative record for years now this this is just a level of scrutiny and a level of a standard of review that is just simply found nowhere in a recess i think it's extraordinary that i don't think that the plane took lightly that mr barnett was disabled for a very very long time and i don't think that the plan took lightly they taking him off of disability benefits would have an impact but i think three neurologists three orthopedic specialist board certified folks and in person i am me a transferrable skills analysis and all they can come up with is well the administrative record doesn't have the job diary that shows the edison jobs maybe it's a real diary maybe was looking at somebody else's diary all together why isn't it not in the administrative record i don't think in ministry of records were ever intended to be you think you're first on the question of the medical evidence the consensus opinion of the doctors for edison pretty much tracks the opinion of the social security administration i summarize it on page twenty in my opening brief that's their consensus opinion that's their opinion it's just like the social security plan and second on the issue of judicial stoppel the question presented is did they prevail they did with no i mean the circumstances are that they were making a mistake barnett was pursuing the claim in part on their behalf and everybody knew it how do you in good conscience say go to get a case and make these arguments and now we're going to flip the other way third on the question the social security consideration this court in montoro and in sloma has unequivocally held you have to address it this is the nine hundred pound gorilla in the room this is important evidence if this were a district court decision that ignored the most important evidence in the record it you'd say go consider the evidence here with court opinions clearly instructing them to address the social security ward with the social security award being front and center in barnett's appeal it's literally not