tests she should she's already hopeless jesters or she was fired and she is supposed to get the certain things and all the things she was told was well the record doesn't have this and this and that therefore your claim  made a ruling on that i don't have any so in this case heard that discrepancy brought up is it wasn't raised on appeal now i've i've never heard that you're the first person to raise it off i know that there was they were proof that the plane was approved for a specific period of time and that and this address is the first issue was that was raised the reason she did receive the check was that because she had been a rony asli receiving her full paycheck and  said this was being brought up for the first time and that you know and i was fast to a summary judgment motion that was not in the complaint i did question my client my client because we were going through settlement discussions and that's one of the aspects of the was entitled but then a court ordered two weeks and there's no indication how the court came up with those two weeks that's not basically two weeks is a partial payment that's three weeks or what the testimony supports so that was my question there but then the issue is the partial benefits that he's arguing about here does that have anything to do with that week or is that a broader issue i must have something to do with that week i don't think it's part of the broader issue that that we're hearing about today i'm not quite sure how you resolved something like that because it was not it was not heard in the district court you know the discords and take evidence  d whether payments have been made or not because the district court determined that because it had not been raised in the complaint that it was outside the scope of the lawsuit and so on and so we never have presented actual documentary evidence to establish that she was paid during that period and i don't know if they do with the man for that matter if she would agree with the district court that it's not properly pri that they needed to do a better job of reviewing the claims i think it was yeah that the plan mistreated failed to provide adequate adequate notice to the ensure that he needed the evidence you need to support primary care physician said that the plaintiff was not stable from a physical standpoint he also wrote in his in notes i think in the  review that's one of the issue of a maybe a psychological disability was raised so in the claim denial letter they said well we there is no documentation to support a disability if you feel you have a disability from a psychological standpoint you need to provide us with objective data that's in the in the claims in our letter need to inform the plaintiff of the need to submit formal was she noted in the records that if the psychologist or psychiatrist had written that upon discontinuation of the dragon romel crypt that the that the plaintiff's condition had improved there's no other documentation other than that in the file the only documentation that subsequently clean came about one year later and the all information that could have been submitted you know during the initial claims process because it was specifically listed in the claim the now letter this is what we need to evaluate the claim they got from the  from the psychometrist was just basically a letter describing some symptoms and mentioning that she had discontinued bromocriptine and that her condition had improved but that she might that she would need some further evaluation and that was that that was all the evidence that was submitted in support of the disability and so that the clinical neuropsychologist consultant said well you know her condition appears to have improved there's no ministry or to ask for objective medical documentation certainly for conditions where it can be objectified like cognitive testing their cognitive abilities their test for that but that was in that they were never submitted even a year later i don't believe they actually submitted any kind of test