versus life insurance company there was nothing improper about those questions and stated specifically that lena did not submit the same question three times with respect that was not the issue that or maybe just those first two questions were irrelevant poorly stated not really sure doesn't mean all questions given by such organizations are always good that's true your honor but the first question submitted to george and it was also submitted to their first medical reviewer dr sami kojo occams you and they seem to have no problem with that they realize that they weren't getting an answer they clearly responded to the point in question what what's wrong with that and i believe your honor that what's wrong with that is they asked the question that that elicited the respons point exact question they should have asked the first the right i remember especially your honor they were capable of doing so well was so i mean if they if they're being incompetent doesn't mean that they were doing anything irregular does well not not a regular your honor but perhaps expert dr wise clearly distinguish between the two conditions i thought that those doctors said it didn't cause you pain but that's not what we're talking about were the standard is broader than causing the centers whether it contributed leno under its responsibilities to its insured certainly had a responsibility to at least seek the opinion of the diagnosing and treating physician which it did not do in addition it may not be listed but everybody's different and we know that and so if they looked at this particular individual situation they could say in this case his p v d contributed to the retinal detachment but  because there are there is a a presumptuous change so what each of the experts did whether they were treating our patient on our side or or on line as i stated it's likely that the p d then caused a chair which then it's li factor closed so there you have a treating and diagnosing physician acknowledging that p v p certainly is a risk factor they have doctor can do the independent board certified separate from the retina leads to a chair that allows liquid in and then you get the retinal attachment he didn't say it was the only way in which this could occur for the identified it as a specific risk factor and in event to the development in other words it's the same thing everybody else was saying the p v d is an event that leads to the retinal detachment because of the way this mechanism works raised during this argument the issue is did the p d contribute to it and was it a close enough contributing factor that if properly identified as a preexisting condition under the language ask a different way and i mean it doesn't take rocket science to know that you're not good you're not giving you the answer you want it that well actually your honor all you have to do is read the report and the answer has already in the report condition that most likely cause the rebels attach and he went on to describe the mechanism in the link and he commented that the mechanism that dr how did you describe it was accurate condition most likely causing the later retinal detachment that really answered the question yes but that the dad really doesn't help you because i think the inquiry here is about bias and if you've got an answer in the report th counsel is trying to make we might have a bias situation if the first question was defeated the cause it contributes to the blinds and he said no and then the second question was well let's put it is this way could it be that if you thought about this a little harder maybe this causes contributed and then you keep pounding on the guy give me the answer i want but instead all three questions were were totally different the first question was reason then the next question was just plain silly the second question was did the treatment or medical services in this look back period caused the condition in february you would expect and dr campbell dr janik excusing was responding to each question answering it appropriately it wasn't his job to try to figure out what they were asking i mean they asked him a question he answered the question the reasoning the answer the question didn't help things because the question was poorly drafted and it didn't relate to the issue of the report it had nothing to do with doctor the district court cited all sorts of examples that this an staff doctor was biased and it given a biased report and that the claim administrator has not gone out and sought independent review by someone outside and significantly apart from disagreeing with their conclusion there's nothing in the record to say that what they said was rock most significantly from dr wise another independent peer physician retain instead he didn't he made his point about what the comp causeless factor was but he had to can see that that there was this prior events factor there that leads us into whether or not the  contribute and give the critical factor here is this is an arbitrary and capricious standard of you case and the prest of this court is very clear on that point you know substantial evidence is more than  scintilla but less than a preponderance of the evidence and if the court looks at the decision and there's substantial evidence and it's a reasonable decision this court has held on multiple occasions that the court must uphold that r and that's what the district court here did and of course the court is not bound by the district court and the court is not you're not deciding whether or not the district judge was erroneous you're making your own the novo review here but he doctor says explicitly made zero effort to get in touch with the diagnosis or of the actual stabling condition there's nothing in the record that contradicts that there's nothing that that he tried and certainly the independent medical reviewers commonly state attempted to reach d cetera but instead they went straight to the preexisting condition diagnosis or because that was a person who could provide a basis for denial in addition they know they were looking at preexisting condition so why would you start at the end to say ok we have gotten detachment because the diagnosis or the retinal detachment is the person most likely to give you the there's a potential diagnostic and therefore there is no evidence of bias in the in our questions posed in the interim however if dr janik answered the way that they mean a desire to or at least in a way that it would accept in that report then why did persist in getting a specific answer to that question when