does not constitute substantial ev workers compensation case who was not even enough who has no no no she was the reason that she one of the reasons he gave for his opinion was that the reason she became disabled was because her own job listing and travel requirements made her with it was the direct cause of her disability but it that the other doctors that examiner so that she was totally straight saw her months and even over a one of those far over a year after she had stopped working at the old job and was no longer involved in those activities and that's not where you're asking us to his reasons are that she worked until she became disabled that was one of the reasons and that the reason that reason has been rejected in virtually every time it's been raised in front of a court of appeals everybody is disabled works until they she's got fibro my allergy points are continually he notices that she got fired on my algae but when he gives his reason for saying that she's not stable he says the lupus hasn't been active in the loop this well dr caplan told him the phone conversation that it's not the  because it did not take into account the opinions of the other doctors and if this case sent things i suppose he she worked in the past which is not a legitimate basis did not consider all the factors that were present things like that she was a girl friday her own according to her employer her own occupation and by lifting duties that regular legal secretary doesn't have once the standard switched to any occupation doctor choose report indicate case involving independent medical record review there's no independent medical examination it's fibromyalgia and it's basically exactly the same thing and the nice organ held that based on the independent medical record review in those doctors said right well and good for the jordan case i think you can see the ninth circuit's reasoning and what they take out of the course records i'm not telling the court that no doctor said she wasn't totally disabled w surgeon's part by continental give you that opinion that she was totally disabled from her own occupation yes yes that's what dr two said and that's why we paid our benefits for two years but after two years the standard in the insurance policy changes from not whether you can perform the occupation you are regularly performing when you became when you went to a client but whether you can perform any occupation the own occupation or saying the other physicians limited their opinion soley to the question of workman's compensation exactly they weren't giving opinions in the context of the standards of the insurer with the baby and was totally disabled was it not that was their words are totally disabled that's my point it is not exactly the application we're making here no not the the trial or reviewed everything all the medical reports dr choose report and what happened in this case was the employer of linus was in an incredibly stressful period the law firm and stuff  any time during the ten years after the lupus diagnosis it's only when there's no job to return to and the flare up occurred because there was a stressful downsizing and eventual collapse of the law from going on compete in the open labor market as a result of the combination of her lupus and fibromyalgia dr bluestone wrote this patient is indeed totally disabled by her natural disease in any case entire national economy they've got a vehicle to qualify for disability under this plan where this plane is meaningless argument you don't need to take all your time you can make your points enjoy your time and we would appreciate it thank you