argument discussing whether you would hire a jag lawyer as a law clerk at that person had been a member of the state bar for at least one year prior to your appointment of that person sa california and under the provisions of the plan expos we have to qualify under a different part of the plan so you can only have one spouse at a time when to this point and i think that's undisputed we're not saying he's saying that  legally married for at least one year prior to the date can be read to say he was legally married to spouse and now i'm legally married spouse be so often legally married for a year but the plan provides for that by providing x past benefits which is totally separate from the persians we're talking about now that's the difference  if you have any questions i'll be happy to try to answer them thank you very much for considering my client's appeal to have a rational result and that reading them together is something that is suggested in the terms of the summary quite description it says and i'm summarizing this that if there's some question about that the benefits the plan prevails over the summer  married for one year immediately prior to your death and the plan document clarifies that it says that the surviving spouse benefit is payable to is the person doing the for just that was married throughout the year preceding a death the trustees read these things in harmony by reading them in harmony that determined that the plaintiff in this case who was married to the participant for less than a one year period prior to his death was not a surviving spouse and she was not entitled to do benefits under the terms of the point  able to bear the burden and not on the individual employee who was powerless to effect the drafting of the summary or the policy and eloquent to bear the financial hardship that might result from a misleading or confusing read in conjunction with the grace that says marry for one year prior to prior to his death if you reduce you together it makes clear that the plan documents going to control and if there's any confusion at all created in the person reading the summary plan description law that that doctrine of construction is applied only in the situation where the administrator of the plan is not vested with discretion to interpret its terms and here the administrator is unquestionably vested with that discretion and construe those terms i think this is different than the burke case in that there if there was an ambiguity present if the ambiguity is present only if you do not read the language it says if there is a question refer to the plan document the plan document is the summary quite description as required by law to be provided every participant at least every five years and it was provided here the plan document is not but the plan document is available to a participant who wishes that the terms of a receipt can request that i i think the more logical reading of that is the reading which the trustees placed upon it but it's certainly the one that was required by the terms of the plan document and the summary point description makes that abundantly clear it's not a matter here of applying  a situation where they cannot for the term in this matter it makes clear that any the final word is in the plan document the plan document is readily available under the law it can be requested it can be inspected at the plan's headquarters that can be inspected the employer stranger could have been from the department of labor but that would be a considerably greater task and check take a look at burke again about where else i believe that the administrator had the same discretion as in this case and second of all i admit i'm a simple country lawyer but this praises for it are not that hard to write the same i mean it's not a difficult job but it's not my client's fault as the court as this court has stated before accuracy is not a lot to ask thank you very much