is now the age of fifty seven years old and by the time she we just sixty five percent of the planning question she should have received the cold amount of three point three million dollars she worked as an engineer for many years  at m c i which then became world com which is the court probably where filed for bankruptcy really for the new york bankruptcy courts be that as it may she want to have as a good conscience this employee and pay the premiums that she thought  issue was raised i'm talking about the time of this is the time when is that if there is no question of the appeals times the we did not i provided in the excerpts of records at pages four fifty three through four fifty seven within a thirty day period because the period for the thirty days fell on the weekend and my operational carry forward so i was very careful to timely file a notice of appeal so it is our position that the court does have jurisdiction to hear this appeal well your honor i think that al i think well then the court then this honorable court of the court feel strongly about it should remand the matter allow us to do that because i think we did timely foreigners the people based on the fact that we filed it from them and the time received notice it was the it seems to say that we don't even have the authority to remand to the district court for determination of whether an extension was warranted our hand seems to be tied well i i would suggest to this court that it would be highly we should've made an extension request to the district court but we did file our appeal timely in our opinion when we received noticed per the declaration of mr williams and i thought it was in thirty days and we launched the declaration of mark williams as part of the record as a district court record and retrospective that it's unfortunate that you were not notified well i think the court has to look at that look at the equities involved and and also the parnell principle of the law and under the under the circumstances this court would have discretion to allow us to remand but i think also that it would be fitting to allow this field proceed because again we did timely fall or no still within thirty days we could not as a practical matter have filed within thirty days of the the under the under those rules for the state courts i know that for that field period to run you have to have a notice of entry of judgment and apparently that's pretty clear in the rules of court for the california courts of appeal that govern that situation where the court is allowed to entertain an appeal and we don't get proper notice from that from the from the district court and retrospective i guess i thought that the fact that there was a minute ordered issued by the court which was the was was the court bill procedure cover your situation where it provides the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of fourteen days if the person has not received notice well again there are not i have to honestly tell you i'm not familiar with that rule as the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal only if all the following conditions are satisfied the motion is filed one hundred eighty days after the judge in your orders entered or within seven days after the moving party received notice of the injury which improves your earlier and the court finds the moving party was entitle to notice of the injury judgment but did not receive the notice from the district court within language doesn't sound to me like it's mandatory language i think that you have to look at the equitable considerations and i think that the there was a fault on the part of the district court in retrospect it should have been done but again and  timely filed per the notice in retrospect we should have filed a motion to get the district court to to do what what the court is suggesting and that rule but i don't think doesn't sound to me like that's an ironclad rule because i think that you have to look at the overall equity's of the situation the circumstances of the situation and i think this court should formally in light of the circumstances i think this court has discretion to decide at the appeal was timely brought because  did file within thirty days of the notice and i don't think it would open up a pandora's box of people doing this this is a unique situation where we didn't get the ruling and i'm not so sure that judge can't even though it was faxed to us as a courtesy with the clerk i'm not so sure that the  clerk ever even sent us the notice of ruling or the notice of entry of judgment by judge king so arguably if that was not arguably even if the court issued a ruling there's still kept time to reassert the appeal and renew it because we never got that again there's a provision for a motion but i think that we could we could argue successfully that this court has discretion to look at the equities involved in a lot of the appeal to pursue you the client mr ford has attempted to collect unemployment benefits in the state of california indicated that she could not collect the she was unable to work at a normal job legit she should file for disability benefits in other words because of her condition she cannot work on normal eight hour day furthermore she was examined at length by the social security to straighten and granted full disability benefits then she went to had and and then attempted to file a claim through a company finally found that out then the claims form was presented to the hard for the claims department and they denied the claim and therefore we filed suit now the  of judge reinhardt in the everhart decision because he cites a lot of case law for the proposition that a third party insurance and sure who is legally responsible by contract can be sued for risa benefits and i believe under the circumstances of this case that that should be the standard adopted by this court and there should be a remand to the district court for trial  problem with that even if m c i was on the case and so i would only be on the hook for about two years of coverage or profiteers of coverage which in effect with me that hartford would get out of it scot free and the cases there are all the case you're right a case cited by the respondent isn't a political because there was no third party insurance company in that case in the ever heard case it's not a political bill because there you have this is everhart was a widow she did recover two hundred thousand the hartford in this case the hartford control completely and had unfettered discretion completely about the the administrative claims they decide whether to accept the client or denied claims except it's a delay the claim or did not delay the client except whether or not to give documents or not at the circumstances of this case but let me let me ask you this question if we determined that hot it was a claims that man the stranger would hardly be liable and to rest use the term plan administrator claims administrate are the reality is that those cases stand for that proposition and i believe that there should be they should be followed and i think this course should make very little involvement they didn't even cooperate with her and given her the proper claims form and telling her who the carrier was if this court was to send a message that she doesn't get coverage because of a technicality that's that the hartford  was not the plan administrator if the court sends that message that means that people like miss ford but do their job as an engineer for years and years and years and pay their disability benefits don't get coverage it makes a mockery of the arista statute and i would point out i'm just go b of the arrest a statute was intended to be a broad remedy over death redress now again in every heart the woman got the widow got paid a couple hundred grand in every heart it was more akin to a wrongful death case you never heart sending a message to the harvard insurance company and we can hire capable attorneys to go into court and cite one or two cases and they can get away with ripping my client off that's what it really comes down to she paid the premiums if and see whether even if c i was in this case the hartford should be how only for those who are responsible as an obligations towards my client and this should this court should be courageous enough to step up to the plate and this thing wish this case on the facts from the will wait for the court to give them notice however in this case notice was not given for seventy seven days after the motion was taken under submission but as the court also correctly pointed out there is a federal rule  general order is in multi page order which apparently judge king chose to use as his judgement on the hartford's motion for summary judgment and then requested that the clerk enter it so if i may proceed with the merits of the appeal the issue before the court today is a threshold issue a simple straightforward issue and it's a single issue of law which this its discretion and authority to a benefits subcommittee which is tightest in washington d c the benefits of community is very carefully granted it's discretionary authority to the myriad a self funded plan for the first thirty six months and in order for any participant to be entitled to benefits after the first thirty months they must have already met that thirty month threshold of the law needs to be changed in order for the insurer to be involved in the litigation that ends up being a relationship or or a contractual issue between the insurance company and the plan sponsor themselves as i understand this lawsuit just i am sure you are correct your honor the problem is twofold here first of all the statute is very clear and that an order can only be intergenerational money judgment can only be interviewed gets the plan number one bring all appropriate relief to a purchaser can quite often i'm standing here defending it plan because my actual client is the insurance company who has funded the benefit under the available into the plan tell us this is a self funded plan for the first three months it is your honor and i think that makes it even more clear than ever heart did because in ever heart it was eight i feel like a trans benefits which almost exclusively is a fully funded benefit so the insurance company has issued a policy in everhart the insurance company also actively krantz administrator which again is off and what i am doing is defending the claims in the street or in the name of the plan but in m c i the court found that the client's administrator could not be sued the plan had to be sued even though it was a fully insured because the statute is very clear we have three was a standard employment release because outstanding salary income and other compensation were paid that left the claims administrator who also happen to be the insurer but the ninth circuit now standing judge trying hard  able to look to jail already versus purchase act all to talk persons equitable life assurance and follow the law in finding that the claims administrator even though they were the insurance company was not the proper party relieve could have been had against the plan humana it wasn't a claim or with regard to a contract between humana who was the h m o and provider of the medical benefit there was a contract between humana and health care providers negotiating the amount of the reasonable medical fee that would be charged in that case the court found that humana and entering into contracts with other parties to provide them medical services was acting as the plan administrator  i went bankrupt even if m c i was a part of this it's not would not be correct of this court in my respectful opinion to deny relief to my client not remain am because otherwise hartford would get off the hook you have to bear in mind my client was disabled at age forty five under the policy she is the title of benefits till sixty five if m c i is only on the hook even if they haven't gone bankrupt for two or three years that means that the hartford escapee and i like the records does not show that mrs ford's claim was presented