that have been affected both nationally and in california with respect to him and you represent to me that this case is not one of those cases this case is not  internet yes i don't want to have your honor and i do have a number of my clients who have gone into the unum reassessment program there is nothing in the books of this case that would indicate that there was any fraud on the part well it was so it was a matter of business practice by knowing that they were denying claims right and left all over the united states that are under this type of an insurance policy and they're paying huge to the settlements to the states and to the state of california specifically was complying with the requirements of dobber and other cases as a reliable scientific methodology dr joel who treated mr armstrong the history follow the differential diagnosis methodology and they can't because the only examination of mr armstrong was done by dr troll so in order to say that he had a condition examination right possible because we know when when his own doctor whether yeah later we're china the doctor knows of this news been deteriorating for a very long time and indeed there ever question that that's the end they got to give him disability and that's the end of the you know i think you can't question what doctor told it but you can't replace what he did by imagining that he had gotten findings well they question what he on this one occasion is in fact the same thing that he had eight months later so what i said before is correct if they don't it's not dr joel which says he gets disability in  examination and they sell the doctors all had a positive anterior test and he misinterpreted that test now they've got an examination finding now they have a basis on which they could somebody else could make a different and said well that doesn't mean that the need is bad you could say well positive you had periods where a test doesn't mean the knee is bad and you could make your differential diagnosis now i think you can't make a differential diagnosis of ne exclusion areas that you have you don't want people coming into the risk pool and sharing the health of the low premiums when they are when you already know that they're going to make the claim i mean that's the basic principle of insurance that's why if you don't allow people to buy automobile insurance the day after they have the accident they have to buy it before because there's there's an unknown and in preexisting conditions the whole point is what do you know that's going to be a claim and what do you not know and here if you say there's no examination because we reject doctors also examination what you have is an unknown which means you should be in the risk pool w everybody else because you don't know that you've got a particular condition with a knee all you can say is there's some generic need pain which could be anything thank you logic mr armstrong's argument is too narrow because as he said his crime first counsel points out it's not simply a matter of the physical examination it's also history it's also diagnostics studies it's also the is a reasonable basis and we had to board certified orthopedist review it on three different occasions got to thomas twice dr convincing once each of them came to these conclusions and so under again to the north