discretion when the court analyzes the record before there if it's going to be looking at when there is substantial evidence in the record in order to make the decision that it mate substantial evidence it's plausible reasonably sufficient to support a conclusion killed him but his preexisting medical condition contributed to the accident he says that he'll and he was something like seven different factors a dad come out of the bad medical history of this guy with his heart condition fainting and the like but then he contributed to his driving to the run on lane and then as to the causation issue we need in terms of certainty of the evidence to the crew frye did to the insurer because the claimant has a doctor who sit on all of these points and says there is no evidence of contributing to the accident and he didn't give enough information to permit you to itself both as a cover blogs and other things versions are all taken to a fact take into account the fact that the crash has to be caused by or contributed to kill in order for the party lang e to come into crowd and you've mentioned contributed to it many times not an important point to make because it doesn't have to be just caustic can be contribute in any way shape or form now you've also spoken to the degree of certainty that each one of the medical providers needs to attest to in the st arc and in massachusetts there is no specific language that's been adopted by the courts that must be used to qualify and that the end such as a reasonable degree but your expert pointed to his opinion that he could not say to a reasonable medical certainty if nothing or more of the factors it seems to me there is someone other than speculation and i'm not certain i would say of the speculation but there is some explanation that comes closest to contributed to this crap he called biases opinion with indicating that he review four hundred and fifty pages of documents of medical histories of the reports yeah ok so he did but it's his conclusions are worried about it i understand but he does draw those conclusions after reviewing this data and it's fair to assume that he engaged with that information and therefore drew those conclusions from that data and as to the contributing to it and there are some seems to be a circuit spread harm the degree of certainty that is required here isn't really your argument  was marijuana was found in his bloodstream they were able to they were able to identify the quantity and then there is this for a general statement from your expert well that surely impaired impaired him in some way and hence it contributed to the accident but then you read on and then there's that from a dollars from and it's really not possible to to tell in what way he was impaired there's no evidence through the reports that were submitted that toxicology i don't think those two statements that you've stated that that he wasn't there and that you can't specifically identify the exact correlation between impairment and yes there is a general propositions that marijuana impairs people's driving that's why there are state laws that have indicated that in a certain model someone is per se impaired in this case we have  one was raised by judge starr with the term independent means in the coverage and then my question is what the term contributed to our language includes the term it is it is impossible and you look at those skies medical history and you have to say it's quite wrong that his medical saying i think as i read it was that yes she had these underlying conditions but they had nothing to do with causing the action it is or isn't my understanding  heart attack i think the issue is whether it's the hard conditions which hand half a dozen different manifestations including fainting spells which write him  or suppose he had to lower the pressure brought on by is heart condition that causes him to feel a little more lucy and he crosses the line those are all quite  something happened here and people don't just suddenly veer their driving into a not to be out with somebody something happened here now in light of there's very credible medical history something that medical history contributed to the accident or caused his death right why isn't that and that's clearly what somebody experts are saying that's where they go and all this detail about his medical history and they were the best they were could what happened and they say well no we can't we can't identify which specific aspect of his medical history account for what happened but something in th exclusion langridge true for stu aren't those really two separate questions i mean from your point of view i think i have already that they are your are and i partly that there are separate put in some direct evidence that the level of marijuana found in his system was sufficient to make him not a viable cry for hours at that level of marijuana that would have had sufficient enough problems that he should have been behind the wheel and therefore that issue of that exclusion the policy would come into effect i hundred or four hundred feet in a linear fashion it was and had another car i mean yes many things it's possible many things could have happened but there's no evidence there is support for any of them really are honest commission that i want to