determination dealt with oddly the board looked at the last it in the record where's the evidence that i have the denial letter i think it is j eight lie i don't think that the letter specifically calls out evidence or the arguments concerning his cognitive claims and the letter what it is doing is addressing the arguments that mr solomon presented appealing that correct but the first application there's an application form which is in the record and on an application form mr solomon represented as application was based on orthopedic injuries only what i did say that i'm just pointing out think that letter came about go back to my point that i started i don't that doesn't matter we want around when i'm reading the words and the words clearly the only parts that i think you could take that you failed on you this appeal doesn't even address what is this denial doesn't even address that i can see let me just say that so i'm clear that the decision letter addressed the points that mr solomon made as he brought that appeal to the board to about that is that there is no dispute that that that's what the letter says and only a plane which it references and says i just have right you've already raised a disability claim you didn't record did not support a finding of t m p totem perm disability prior to march thirty first two thousand and ten so the board had looked at the evidence including evidence on his cognitive disability which is the point there is that there is not a single out so what is the no no so what is the letter at eight twenty two which is a heap received your honor a further appeal from this determination so this is the final word eight correct is that it seems to me those to me like you haven't even addressed this cognitive well the prior letter looking over it but this is what we have to find all right or i think what i'm trying to say is i think the writers letters need to be read and suppose just suppose that we think that this is the final letter and this is the rationale that given us yes i think we can and how and how would that be because the evidence on the brain injury arguing the problem with the district court one of the problems that mr gore had is the failure there is no you don't think that's the very definition of arbitrary you lost  the recent analysis for me is understanding the sequence know the rescue where point me in the record to any indication whatsoever that the plant attempted any reasoned assessment of the evidence that was presented with respect to cognitive but the cognitive evidence i think was described in the board just earlier interim determination where it said we looked at the record and it does not sustain the burden of proof that the board detail of the oven and  impairment weird on the phone or not look you know the board look at and i think that it didn't get it but you just said he didn't know i said it wasn't mentioned letter i can't i mean obviously it was not specifically called out in the letter but to establish his  is undisputed june june eleven to two thousand and ten that markedly that is two months afterwards but they said that if this was a disease that the generated over a five to ten year period i just want to look in the records i'm a eight ten feet one zero this is an earlier letter you keep sending it to now this is mr  just one of whom was the plan's neurologists right supporting his second appeal and the only argument you have is that they took place two months after not even two months six weeks after the march thirty one deadline but they said that this degenerated over a five to ten year period right and there that took place before the march thirty one two thousand and ten and it looks like based on at least somebody the plan big he had a cognitive disability or cognitive problem way before the deadline why didn't  this is he's writing himself he's writing the appeal without it without any lawyer that i understanding and you'll see there that he's writing to appeal and he's saying that he's entitled to football genitives and if it's right and he's pointing back to his prior application that he filed previously right he also mentions his social security ward in there and i believe that the retirement board was responding to that in  for which the plane made its decision i'm saying it explains why the final letter on the retirement board was focused on those points ye collective bargaining all that is it you know the plan is the product of collective bargaining between it and why in the world would you i guess they become players don't want to come out past players or something i don't think that's does that make sense to you but regardless of the amount of benefits to the question of why and how this all happened i think it's a sequence of events understanding that they agree you think that looks good to players what's going on in this did say we see that we see what the information is it's not clear enough we recognize just as they separate a feel of several bases  but miles not only did it have no substantial evidence it had zero evidence the question before the board was whether mr solomon was substantially impaired from working by his cognitive disability which resulting from football representation that the only thing he said to the board was that he was continuing to appeal down the the thing that he'd already lost on so the november letter as was as you put it the the final decision i understand of the what were did but what i'm asking you to look at is his letter to them that triggered whatever it is they did because that's apparently what the board application is at j six sixty seven and that was done before this letter yet so the sequence was that it was the mr solomon second application the board denied that which was the first thank you the first letter that mr john cited mr b that a application for it is their denial of his request for the higher level of benefits and so he was saying again without a lawyer on his own i believe i am entitled to the higher level of benefits that now the board was not entitled to then only look at the letter that you submitted in connection with appealing that decision there was a full record and the board's obligation as an a risk of fiduciary is to look at the record before it and make a reasoned reasoned decision based on that record and it's only reach a decision overwhelming evidence to the contrary now first of all it was the evaluations by dr fernandez who was a psychiatrist and dr di diode plans neurologist and mr solomon was so what a leader do what do we do  that the court that the plan abused its discretion by reaching a decision for which there was no substantial basis and for for no substantial evidence and against which there was as this report put  overwhelming evidence to the contrary and just to make this clear it's not only the neurologist and the psychiatrists evaluation and the fact that they explained that this had been a degenerative disease for five to ten years but they each hide it back to the fact that mr solomon had been unable to work it lost his job he was forced to resign in november two thousand and seven is undisputed that that is when he lost his job and that the reasons for his losing a job were behavioral everybody i would just like for a moment to address the planet her position point and i do think it was erroneous for the district court to apply the doctrine of contra operands in this case to construe the plan provision and i think you have to reach that question first two thousand and eight so security onset that's the way it had already always been interpreted board has discretion ossification decisions were reserved for the board and it wasn't to unilaterally accept because i think it's it's setting up a question here of the conflict between the social security and said he and his prior application history we're not we don't reach the social security the argument