attorney and had to have massive reconstructive surgery to his face he was disabled because of the surgery for about two months because there's physical problems but also instant the attack critically important part if you used to be able to for ninety one days at any point during that period september right at first policy had last no the depression started if you look at the reports of  later on classes like let me this is a malpractise case you know i mean the language of the policy requires that the person who is disabled be under the care of  you know as soon as he was things happened after that and did he look at for example looking at the defendant's briefs they're saying why do we have this what we have this just to make sure the guy's disabled make sure he's going to return to work well even their own experts say that was never an issue that clearly he suffers this terrible depression and it may be in hospital organic brain injury stemming from getting hit nothing with this tremendous impact so he's doing the question bec morning i'm scott they also for kelly part of your life insurance company the district court correctly ruled that under the terms of the policy mr schacter was not entitled to coverage because he had not been under the treatment of a physician for the condition that this is not a man who goes out in the back to work and then comes back and later claims injury he was treated immediately and why shouldn't that mental condition be considered intertwined with a physical condition  surgeon treated mister only from the physical conditions which he said had missed the point that mystery shakar could return to work in november of one nine hundred ninety six within two months of the then that caused the the question in the particular case would be whether he was getting three for the condition that causes disability and that goes back to my answer to judge nelson's question because here are the facts are clear dr resto the plastic surgeon treated him for his physical injury determined he was capable of going back to work within two months mr ishi acar acknowledged himself that he was able to go back to work within two months based on dr restos treatment and he further acknowledged as the district court noted that his disability was caused by a different condition and that being the question now here history shakar did not even a den of thought i that problem until after the policy had lapsed now your question suggest possibly different we worded policy a policy here didn't say that the insured had to merely be under the treatment of a position some policies do the policy here instead said that the insured had to be under the treatment of a physician for the condition causing the disability moreover the policy did not say that you merely had to be under the treatment of a physician for the injury it was again it's important to focus back on the facts of this particular case the policy lapses after the policy lapses mystery shopper for the first time a dentist prize that he has a mental problem and sees a physician that the day after he tries to send in his premiums to revive the formerly lapsed policy and the more the policy also expressly recognizes circumstances when the requirement of itself acknowledges when they are going exception to the requirement and i recognize this is a case where it's undisputed that the condition that's causing the disability is his mental depression i undisputed that he did not even a dentist by that condition much last consult with a received treatment for it he didn't identify it to a physician until after the policy has lapsed and it was in that sequence of events that made it appropriate for the district court to determine if you apply the policy by its terms which is the way nevada approaches insurance policies that coverage would be barred because he never had treatment from a physician for the condition causing disability until after the policy lapsed for the condition causing disability and you say that it is not  to the grounds for the interim summary judgment that the summary judgment is based on the policy provision requiring treatment of a physician for the condition causing disability and let me go back briefly to the issue of waiver of premium because premium waiver only kicks if insured has a total disability for ninety days and mystery shakar never while the policy was in force had a total disability for that period he never was unable to perform important duties of his profession and also under the care of the physicians for the condition causing the disability during the policy period so he cannot excuse his nonpayment of premiums related that but again that's not the basis for summary judgment the question is was he getting treatment for that condition while the