relevant evidence that he submitted to support his claim for disability following that to support their denial and refusal to ignore that relevant up it the plan created a why it was absolutely necessary for the plan to review and consider the one thousand eight hundred pages of medical records submitted to support the disability it's very clear under arrest and a fundamental tenant of the rules that govern the arrest of process under the statute under the regulations implementing the statute and in this case even under the clear language of the plan when a claim is the nine and a claim provides information to support the claim it is absolutely the duty of the plan administrator to review that what about the find the ruling that it was untimely the the that any well we think it does or are because the way we interpret it in connection with what the rest of that and i'll are saying hey and but send us your evidence will read it which they didn't do in connection with simply means that the reason you stopped working was because you were disabled and if you can prove that then no matter how many years or decades to take place there is no deadline in the plan there's simply no deadline in the plan and in this case the medical evidence it's a it's a it's a very unusual case but the medical evidence shows clearly that prior to ending his employment relationship with at the time the cleeve all through the way that all through the time that he appl but as we go you know we submitted voluminous medical records there was a lot of interactions with medical personnel that documented the very serious mental issues that mr assessment to determine whether or not he was disabled and that's part of the attar around the time of the his quitting i would argue they not only have the right to do that assessment they have the obligation to do th and the problem with this case is they didn't do that assessment they just simply refused to look at any of the medical records and that's not in dispute they just simply said this is too late we're not going to look at this and try to figure out whether or not we can determine whether or not he was to explain the rationale why the rationale given in the nd to my letter was exactly as you said because we think it would be too hard to figure out whether or not somebody was terminal was disabled when they were terminated employment six years later in the had looked at it that he was disabled prior terminated he had continued to be disabled was completely unemployed will he could barely maintain activities of daily living he was off the grid for for a long time and that's in the records all that but it all of those medical records also show that the clean was clearly on the notice at the time of this terminations the serious medical conditions that he gets off work in fact the after he left employment he was in voluntarily talking about is there a job can he come back we you know there's questions about that and in those records the medical personnel said the clique was well so they were well aware of them even said it was well with the president of the company that they were sympathetic them but they don't think there's anything to do with that hospital the hospital worker then someone who could have acted on his behalf to sound it he was certainly not in a position sounds like he was not in a position to figure out disability future disability payments for himself at that point was there anyone who is either guardian or someone who could have been appointed through the hospital or could have been his representative i don't know judge i mean i think the plan would have allowed that but that would take into account that you know they would have to be aware of the fact that these benefits were available and i think that the record metaphor it's kind of show that you know that was not certainly on mr  mind at that point i mean he was under serious paranoia hallucinations and it didn't occur to him until he finally got stabilized with treatment and had a social worker where he was on social security and then it occurred to him well i also think i have this ability benefit pensions so you know and it is a sympathetic case but we're not looking for sympathy we're simply looking for the rights that were promised to him in the plan in the denial letters that they examined this information the st denial letters that interconnection with that's what i thought the plants that were not citing quoting the plant that's what they're interpreted in the language to be the nd one was at or around the time because that's important for us to know if we can determine whether or not someone was stable when they stopped but then litigation they came up and said well no there actually is a hard and fast deadline they said that there's actually thirty days prior to your disability or terminations you had to apply for  t that was something that was never brought up before it's our position that language is actually borrowed from the retirement section because of the pension plan it has retirement benefits and disability benefits and it's completely unworkable there w no way in most situations where someone with no thirty days prior to becoming disabled that they were going to have to stop work if mr that front left work was in a car and then was in a coma for two years there's no way that he would have known thirty days prior to him stopping work that that was going to happen i you making the argument that these contacts between the hospital and and what couey where there are basically saying this look and see if we can determine whether or not the time that you were terminated you were disabled we had no other work for you there saying well we can't do that six years later because there's no way to know and we submit information of those that we gave it they could because you knew back and it's in the records and we have records to show that he was completely unavoidable for all these years i should also point out the plan does have language in there that talks about process that i below how do you answer the question of how do you know thirty days before that you're going to be an accurate thirty days from the day you're going to stop employment you can be in an automobile accident and you could be paralyzed you're us a little bit in the change you can't just short one day to you know time and do you have anything in the record to shows of that was a justification that was made prior to litigation your honor we told him from day one your cla around could be also thirty days after it that your honor the you could but that's an academic point because we're six years here and so we've always sit in the say that he didn't understand that it was a timely look at the appeal he filed twice he said you denied this claim because it was untimely so he fully understood that this was a time on this issue and that is the issue our committee had the st to saw it had to read the plan and say is there a time limit when you have to file a claim and we said yes and that certainly isn't six years and then we said we've looked at the plan document we've looked at the s p d we've this plant was arbitrary and capricious in fact he's never even argued that it was being correct he never presented to the district court or to this court an alternative interpretation of this plan that that the representative are a family member me but i suppose you're even then it was an arbitrary capricious not to do that or there was no duty to do that well st of all he's never been a claim that there was a duty to do that that's not a claim that has been asserted in this when you start taking action on behalf of participants human evidently get sued because you didn't give them the right advice she told them to take a joint and survivor duty and that should have taken all along some you've told them they ought to wait for the early retirement program and it never comes and so i always tell my clients don't start telling people what they ought to do and what they shouldn't do and the law the rest of it's clear that we don't have that obligation to start providing and correct the next argument is that we breached if i do share duty by not reading the medical records and that's simply incorrect your honor we have an obligation to look at the evidence that relates to the issue we this claim time the plan document provides that answer to both questions it tells you what the time limit is and we interpreted the plan and him and he doesn't say that we misinterpreted his medical records could not change the plan it could not amend the plan it could not change how the plan was to be interpreted and he never suggests that it can doesn't say that medical records can change when somebody files a lawsuit in district court what does the district court st it do i have subject managers stiction do i have personal jurisdiction is this la time it doesn't read all of the evidence and make a decision on the merits when deciding those three questions and the same was true here we had to decide is  this year participant in the only document that could provide an answer those questions was the plan document and that's what we analyzed together with the summary plan description and we looked at the history of interpretation read the medical records to decide whether this plane was timely are not we had to read the plan document is that where the answer is what would have then timely the ads in or around particular example with significant mental health problems without a personal representative or guardian does that affect the at or around time and it could could you submit documentation that in essence stretch to that based on the circumstances well i would say that in this instance the plane does allow for that potential because it says a family member or representative may do so in my understanding is that the current doctor is the saying well this one clearly isn't but and well you're on the plan does say that you have to do it thirty days in advance of when you're going to start seeking the benefits it's not thirty days in advance of when you become disabled it's not thirty days in advance of your car accident it's not thirty days in event of your heart attack it's thirty days in advance of the time when you say i'm going to terminate my point with the company so i could be i could be in the hospital and have all these circumstances and i'm continuing to get all the benefits of employment and then i say all right folks i'm in the i'm in the hospital i'm disabled i'm going to go ahead and retire and thirty days what about the situation though where he wasn't he didn't quit what if the company says your sole disabled were fight fire and you were then so he couldn't do thirty days because he didn't think he was disabled well i'm not sure that in th instance he would have said that he resigned but he didn't resign of this case he was fired because no stable no he resigned he voluntarily resigned that stipulated on the record i thought the record said that he was  let go or voluntarily retires who you know is probably disabled to be told that there are certain disability benefits available to him no sir we have to give him a summary plan description which he has and we have here and it obligation the court in the last clear to do that we don't have to go in individual individually counsel him on what he can or might want to do thank you we've asked you the court for  review to read the medical records and to consistently apply the plan not to give us three explanations of what their interpretation is but to consistently explain to all what are the best because i think that's required under king that they came up with this thirty day requirement when before they told us that it's simply had to be at or around the time in order to that to the term of whether or not a person is disabled at the time that they stopped working and did not have any other so told us that they needed information to determine whether or not after around the time that he was terminated he could work at the company and we believe we supply that information they chose to ignore it we think the regulations require that they do