the literature that accompanied the drugs put out by the defendant says that this in part france in nature and implies that the symptoms will go away if you stop taking the drug so our is a reasonable man and that fact that he knows what these conditions are very not mean and so the moment he recognizes those symptoms and so you think he would advise his patients the same way i go to worry about this and go away lot of evidence where all kinds of inferences can be drawn but the bottom line is that the physicians the doctor make and was consulting were not able to determine what was the cause of his condition were not able to tie his condition to left at four and under those circumstances a reasonable man would not be circumstances our contention is the district court did not properly say that as a matter of law he was put on notice of these claims against the defendants arising out of the use of weapons or under th under their interpretations in the last going to the palmer case if the quick and dirty years upon notification of her plane crash a reasonable person as a matter of was enough information to be alerted that he should begin an inquiry concerning the really i don't think that case really applies star situation i think that i've case that's closer to our situation where the plane did not know all the source of this problem is the was only years later that he discovers that it was due to malpractise in the emergency room but the court said in that situation as long as he was looking so that that case i think is much closer to the howard situation where you have somebody making an effort to find out what is wrong with him but there is a do knew that they didn't feel good that something was wrong with them it turned out the symptoms were consistent with carbon monoxide poisoning they said we didn't discover that until within the weakness and for the heat in october of ninety nine at a time when we were or he was a long ways from finding out his medically documented condition when he says the rest  occasions while last as long as certain aspects which are somewhat unique it's well established by the alaska supreme court cameron court stated that a person reasonably should know his cause of action when he says visionaries to prompt an inquiry into the says your exposure to toxic fumes goes back the next day that's that that's put because he has a symptomatology of that goes back the next day or a week later that since you're fine there's nothing wrong with you it's five years later that he contracts to measure alaska supreme court's at the cruelty is not when he found out his permanent diagnosis of dementia is a cruel date is the time when he was first told that he had exposure to toxic fumes and was told by the doctor that in fact this was a had prior and unpleasant side effects so november sixteenth this late in the game your honor we also have a november second we have dr levine ordering a c p t test as your honor correctly pointed out doctors do that when they suspect there's potential muscle injury muscle damage that's what actually being did because of some a colorful quote about if you get run over by a horse you don't look for albino zebras towards tony's or something that he has he basically said there was a muscle problem so therefore i'm going to order  on november nineteenth the results of that comes back what is dr may can do dr making immediately that day stops taking lipitor and then what does he do he writes a little fax to his doctors appropriately because he's in we've heard a fair amount the doctor make and no one was suspecting look at oral muscle problems at this point i can only i think that's that's inaccurate there's a diagnosis on october twentieth that's in the records in their complaint courts or he is aware of the warnings in the labeling he has expertise in muscular skeletal issues that's on his website promotional materials and at the time even of of his deposition after a lawsuit was filed he was purposes of the statute of limitations cannot be determined on summary judgment the after the fact after its term and that he has a chronic myopic that it's easy to go man would not have started a lawsuit against these defendants at the time that the defendants claimed the suit should have been brought up if they are right then it seems to me that in would be an abuse of the system would bring before the court cases that were premature and hence should not have been taking up the court's time thank you