can you tell me where in the record i can find an expressed statement by a physician that there is specific medical evidence of a proximate ca that's basically preference so what medical evidence then comes to light that over time you can attribute the medical condition specifically to the head injury relying on some third party to say something to say so that he has not been necessarily cross exam or can be demonstrated by clinical methods they're relying to that extent on the truthfulness of bread and void when he says i haven't had any other concussions through statement your honor that is a true statement that we rely on expert witnesses and expert witnesses are entitled to express opinions and the validity of an expert witnesses opinion is depended upon this is the foundation of the facts that there is a problem i have because most of the foundation this hypothetical well we know that he ha problems but dr gordon specifically left open the proposition that it's less than fifty percent he didn't rule it out as a cause of mr boyd's disability all the doctors agree open the room that all these other symptoms were caused by the head injury but this is all we had at the company tonight liability and faces which is i guess i had the same problem with the case  l it's difficult to prove a negative it's difficult for me to prove that i've never had another i've never had a head trauma but it is very easy to prove that i have had  on behalf of mr boyd we would like to have this report reviewed by dr ford and dr ross effect back according particular and ask them if it changes their opinion or provides additional foundation for their opinion and then a health plan and they can't arrive at a conclusion on proximate cause and they deny the client now there's nothing area sponsible about that if that's the fa that's why there's three people on the panel to review what what ever a claimant can present whatever the physicians present and to look at what the plan says and to make clear war or t not the way that rational people don't go out and retain a physician and then just simply say well we don't like what she said we're going to go to another doctor that's somewhat reasonable people  of football in particular it in general and understand the nature of working as a lineman in particular that that there would be continuous had the last just a verity and that are when you say that the question here is did the board of the six members act irresponsibly or that they act rationally we of course believe that the record clearly establishes that the board acted under the firestone case by the supreme court the board is given broad discretion the broadest discretion possible under arrest of budget plan that being the case the board's discretionary decisions including in this case are reviewed under the highly deferential arbitrary capricious or abuse of discretion standard of review if the plan chooses the doctors that do the examinations the neutral positions that were referred to before that that is the case your honor the neutral positions are the word neutral means that this is a position is agreed upon by both sides on the retirement portfolio but both the employer representatives and the employees representative s correct your honor but they still represent the monies coming out of a plan that is not necessarily on our money or in money as it's money set aside by contract for this now as a result of the boys this isn't and finding that there was no causation group aboard awarded mr boyd an active thrown from a disability benefits of about eighty thousand dollars a year as opposed to the hundred ninety seven he applied for football the general benefits based on his worth of the the injuries primarily through his right knee and left their goal at that time he said i know i have the mind of spirit to succeed in an occupation but my case he was equally i'm sure he said that the disability that mr boyd was experiencing appears to be the result of scored thirty out of thirty hundred percent on the name of mental state exam which included cognitive functions and that this exam was a crude test of memory that he did very well and so the testing results contradicted the report symptoms from the patient  who firmness reading the you know the collective bargaining parties in the board agreed that there has to be a clear causal link between the allies football injury and the total hermits disability the highly different standard there can be more than one reasonable way to read to interpret facts or to interpret the plan now here he saying that the alleged head injury nine hundred eighty cannot be organically responsible for all or even a major portion of the problems he's experiencing that it one way to read it is he's saying it could be responsible for something that isn't why the board read it the board read it that it's not responsible for all or even a major portion and that there could be other causes and you mentioned earlier that there were no other cause aside of well in fact at the end of that paragraph eleven i'm reading from excerpts the record and one one issue that was raised in the opening argument by the players this is credibility an issue and the players council said no i think it is an issue i think in fact dr gordon on the same page or reading for the plan told mr boyd's lawyers that that would not be done and they said that it would be inconsistent with the board's policy in practice what the what the board does when it receives medical opinions is that it takes them then on a sort of rolling forward basis or has just to use the example of this case dr ford gave his opinion and later on at the end of the know taking a later report and going back to an earlier doctor and getting into a debate between him and in his brief the plaintiff started the case the armstrong case purports to be a doctor as far as the spec'd exam goes i think it's important to look at what the what the doctor said in their