show that she was she didn't even have enough money she didn't have enough money to pay her mortgage your house was going to go into foreclosure this policy say about excuse for not nine use of a position as opposed to firing the use of a  it doesn't say anything well arguing in essence her inability to pay in medical doctor is an excuse under the contract for  consultation with recession despite what the company required no the condition of the larboard not exactly arguing that she was in that position because the company the insurance company arbitrarily and capriciously denied her the first two years with the benefit as this court found god took two years she got that she got that and in two thousand and december of two thousand she did not have it in but she could not and there's case law on this that when you can't fault a person for my going to the doctor when i can't afford to go to the doctor maybe when you hear claim under a contract that requires you to go to the doctor well if the contract every are cause of disability she made a claim initially when she first became disabled the policy provides that if another car's a rise of during a period where she is disabled in the title benefits that new cars is it doesn't say you have to apply for it again or anything else capricious whether or not it made its decision without any explanation whether or not its decision conflicts with the clear language of the plan whether or not it focused on a clearly erroneous facts and law what basically whether it was patently arbitrary and on reasonable and again the plank the opponent has admitted that that is the standard to be applied here by this court and his brief to suggest a couple of physician at the time of the period of the disability is an expressed provision in the contract that has not been attacked by the appellant there is no argument that it's vague ambiguous on forcible the only argument that has been made is that that the the appellant could not be under the care for of a physician because of her poverty status which she is blaming on my client i believe that that that argument is both factually and legally without merit we've been talking only about a mental disability case there was never an argument raised well in addition to this mental disability we also have these other disabilities when the mental disability claim was finally disposed of and paid sixteen days later the parent says all here's some other issues you know i have these problems with my hip and my knees correct correct the problem we have of orses you know those problems with had to have been existing in march of ninety eight when her mental disability benefits ran out in order for her to have continued benefits and when when she brought it to our attention my client's attention that there was these physical ailments as well then we pursued the course of looking at those at those issues we got all of her records we spent my client's been a better part of a year assembling all of the records doing the the appropriate interviews except her and could not find anything in any record anywhere to show that she was either a disabled and march of ninety eight or disability claim was denied in and ninety seven and so you know there's still time for her there to see to see a doctor but i think that the that the most important thing to remember is that this policy a long term disability benefits policy not a health policy is not a blue cross plan it's not a health net plan was never there to pay her medical bills to see doctors i don't know what plans she had for that if any but this this plan was not a substitute and was not a means for her to pay her medical bills to see doctors and i would agree with the court that there were numerous other opportunities and health plan the the denial of the benefits may have caused her to have less you know less money because she wasn't getting the disability payment but that i would think is a separate and distinct issue from whatever health plan she was or was not on that would have been there to pay medical bills and i don't think it's a a positive result for this court to reach as a matter of public policy to say well if if you've been an eye to claim for disability benefits and your ailing physically that you can not do anything you don't have to do anything to mitigate your physical ailments and you don't have to see a doctor and you don't have to make any efforts to visit any medical facilities because three four five years down the road the court's going to fix all that for you if she was as tough as poorly physically disabled as she claims to be one would think that in one thousand nine hundred eighty she would have gotten herself to a doctor and there's just there's nothing in the records to indicate that she was that disabled the with the appellant has admitted that she was not under the care of a doctor for a physical disability as of march of ninety eight when all the dust settled when my client i was speaking very hard to find out where evidence there was that she was under disability physically in one thousand nine hundred eighty at the end of the day all a got was to one page reports from doctors that were written five years after one thousand nine hundred eighty that never saw her anywhere close to nine hundred ninety eight and and basically said basically what we're looking at today in the year two thousand she she probably was at is whether or not the the appellant was suffering from a disability and that means that she was physically unable to perform the functions of her job what was her job she was a c e o of a data processing company she had a desk job she was filling out paperwork making calls organizing the office and even if one accepts the medical reports that were submitted to my client there's nothing in there that says she was disabled as that term is  in the plan in ninety eight all it says at best is that she was suffering from some form of arthritis perhaps as far back as one thousand nine hundred seven ninety eight but there's no finding at all anywhere of any disability as that term is defined in the matter was remanded back to the plan the plan never had anybody review those those those records so those those those records indicate she was disabled in one thousand nine hundred from the arthritis and that's on contradicted with regard to the public health or being able to go someplace to find medical if that was never raised below and that was never discussed and we don't know what the situation is whether she could have gone or water whether she had gone they kept a record or whatever in the end we know that she needed to hip replacements just a few years after liberty argues that there is no evidence of cook's disability status after october nine hundred ninety eight when it terminated her disability benefits and that's no basis for awarding her disability benefits past that date however the absence of information about cook's disability status result directly from liberty's arbitrary capricious determination of her benefits as recipient of disability benefits cook was under a continuing obligation to reduce proof of her disability pursuant to the long term disability plan once liberty terminated  benefits she was no longer obligated to update liberty on or else status who would be patently unfair to hold that in the risk of plaintiff has a continuing responsibility to date her former insurance company and the court on her disability during the pendency of or internal appeals and litigation on the off chance that she might prevail in her loss or lost him moreover the district court notes in this decision reconstruction of the evidence of disability during the years of litigation could be difficult for of long term disability benefits wrongfully terminated from a plan my claim is exactly the position of of cooking cook first is liberty and if you look at the case of you know i can't pronounce this but it's  spread versus a dupont also cited in my briefs that is a case almost directly on point dealing with the inability to get to see a doctor because because of a lack of funds and how would he take it tends to indeed be anomalous as well as unjust to deny benefits because the insurer the insurer refused to underwrite the visit without which the insured cannot afford to see a doctor the very reason for obtaining insurance in the first place in that is that's my client position she was she was entitle to benefits that were denied her for over five years which she finally got the benefits she went to the doctor she had what with what she needed to be done was done she still going through that whole process right now before she got the