occupy his time during that decade was critical to the jury's determination of whether he was actually disabled but that's the evidence that the district court got from jury the district court applied the wrong legal standard who obviously well the the reason why he was in pain is determined that he was not this able to because number one from practicing law he was first of all he was practicing law he was appearing in many but i wasn't doing it full time and that's why i was probably to say what the reason he wasn't doing it full time was kept in the during because he was otherwise occupied engaging and sophisticated complex it certainly was evidence that was relevant to the issue that the jury was trying to determine it was highly relevant or central to the issue of whether or not he was told what you seem to be wanting to do so just the fact  are it's not something for impeachment purposes it's for the issue of whether or not he's totally disabled and also for the issue of what was his regular occupation those are two very central issues and a disability  quite some time with the district judge trying to pin down what it was what the theory was now you say the district court applied the wrong standard but that's so for zero three standard as i understand it you're focused on yet most of the discussion as i read the transcript seems to focus on whether it comes in under four o four b in the first place what's the relevance ok occasionally a couple of times the district court refers to  more prejudicial than probative but i didn't come across to me is that was the focus of the discussion there seemed to be a real wrestling match with some fairly critical statements by the cour opponent but the focus was on whether it came in as relevant the first place and that's sort of what we're trying to sort out even here today it sounds like and you know that was my prior point that i was making it was kind of right relevant to understand you're making a he just had a bazillion insurance policies point now as contrast it with the point which i understood you were making at trial which is that he made arguably fraudulent claims on twenty nine policies very different purposes it seems to me and so probably fraudulent yes that's a different point from asserting relevance based on fact that he had bought himself a whole lot of disability policy and that somehow the jumbled together but the district court that we're reviewing you're saying we should find abused his discretion because he applied the wrong standard and yet most of the discussion that i'm able to focus on and find in the transcript very carefully trying to get plaintiff's counsel to focus on what is the relevance in the first instance which you get to before that's the predicate before you get to rule four three you're going to put in prior bad acts prior course of conduct to show intent or whatever that's an exception under four hundred forty and then if it falls within and then the court moves to all right you establish some relevance let's decide whether if it's relevant it's substantially more prejudicial then it is probably not he doesn't say substantially so we can get into that part of the analysis i'm still trying to find out where did the planes council cleanly offer up to the district court who seemed quite focused on and quite confused by planning to specs formation as to why these various items ought to come in do the papers that were actually filed do explain the rationale more clearly and that's in the the excerpts of practice i think i think maybe if i'm taking it on your own terms why is it that the claims around the world taking depositions that shows a level of sophistication but the jury they were they were given like the face page in a signature page of a pleadings they were not given the details of the level of sophistication shuffling around his living room in reverses if a lawyer were continually taking depositions talking to clients or to himself because he was his own client a lot of respects traveling around making court appearances filing pleadings filing lawsuits and whatever what difference would it make whether he did that he committed malpractise for purposes of disability the coin is he was acting in this matter whether he was good or bad or indifferent isn't forming the corporations and to escalate the value of the yacht this is the forming the corporation that's work whatever the motive of the end result was suppose were some other client th the issue before the jury that's what was happening and flying around the world to go to st did you go to strip i don't recall whether or not the detail that some of these depositions took place in italy and organic brain syndrome what do we do with the problem that the district court excluded evidence of three of the initial treating physicians whose credibility how they test the district court clearly would have allowed them to be impeached but the later physicians actually rely on that they need these later physicians actually examined or at the door of the later physician was made to any evaluations or any statements by doctors fredricka and happening matter of fact i had no plan to bring up doctors h frederick the insurance company and usually brought up like i suppose you wouldn't want to and they would because they would if i thought they were being fraudulent essentially untrustworthy i wouldn't in your position want to bring them any other sure fill out attending physician statements which are the statements that go in monthly to the insurance companies their evaluations are not the critical evaluation what so important about doctors are s mormons testimony as they mainly rely on the insurance companies decisions because the first important examinations the so called emmys were done george and they all found him to be totally disabled then doctors asar now and mormon came in and if you look at their reports their reports honor the key point on this is there was an overwhelming amount of medical testimony it all went one way that mr george was totally disabled would have been a mistake for the court to highlight the fact that two of these doctors very early on had to filled out attending physician statements who had or statements were not important in this case and they the since every doctor came out the same way that mr george was totally disabled regular medical care your honor this was an issue that everyone with some of the other issues that which hold the created on appeal and did not exist at the trial here was the situation with respect to this the divorce being under care treatment the care of physicians we quote on evidence that from the beginning to near the end well no time during the trial did the insurance company lawyers challenge the fact that mr george received care in other words with respect to the receipt of care treatment by physicians we put on a great deal of evidence of the treatment that mr george received the reason was our hope was a medical they made some mention of it the courts that look given the medical testimony here i don't see any reason why you should be able to bring up to the jury that mr g george was in prison time i know that treatment is there and in fact the insurance company's lawyers conceded the point so you know this is now made into a major issue on appeal at trial it wasn't even raised so the answer the answer is mystic to george had care throughout the time that he was claiming disability i know for a fact that mr de george did have expensive care while he was in prison trial and the court felt that there was a need to put on that everything in fact we would have put on that evidence so to now you know cherry pick you know a two week trial and say oh you didn't put on that think it was i think it was conceded now as i said when i started out i said that the medical evidence was overwhelming and i don't know of several professional disability cases and i've yet to have one they had medical evidence going one way in other words on that issue it was the slaughter there was they had no chance so what they tried to do was take it away insurance companies do what was their only hope which was to try to which they did yours so badly that the jury would ignore the evidence the medical evidence which was judge johnson was righteous and win this case because he didn't give in to what i think first of all that mr george had a conviction for which doesn't deserve to have a fair trial on his whole disability i'm going to let it all in now your honour's are exactly right that the focus with respect to the  that mr george was eighteen we need fraud and every one of these claims are fraud and therefore this claim is fraud that was all but that's exactly what they focused on i knew that they were going to do mr watchings argument that no this really the issue was the amount of time he spent making these claims that was not part of the trial that wasn't part of the record and literally there was not a single shred of evidence that any of those claims were fraudulent yes they were tremendous amount of claims maybe they were fraudulent but there was no respect to this issue of how mr de george occupied his time the insurance companies didn't have any evidence about how long it took mr divorce to make those claims there wasn't a single shred of evidence offered saying well it would have taken just a few towards this amount of time and therefore that was taking up a lot of time and therefore he didn't have enough time as a lawyer and that's the reason he wasn't practicing as a lawyer that wasn't an argument against i didn't have any evidence to an attorney was he unable to perform the substantial material duties of these occupation in the usual and customary way with reasonable certainty that was the issue for the jury so it was quite appropriate for the insurance companies to put on the evidence about what mr did george that is a lawyer and the court let the insurance companies put in all of that evidence the reality is a trial record shows it turned out to be a very small amount of the time it clearly was not mr george's usual usual and customary white and it wasn't with reasonable continuity so the jury had no reason and didn't find that mr did george was not totally disabled based on the fact that he was spending his arms an attorney because it was a very small amount of  conviction for mail fraud wire fraud and perjury was placed before the jury for the jury knew he was a convicted felon the jury was given an hour's worth of videotape testimony from mr falco who claimed that he was mistaken george his right hand man that mr george cooked up all of these claims on how to be bipolar and how to beat organic brain syndrome and also heart problems and he faked those and in fact i did not represent mr detour to the behind that mr deposition was taken and mr falco who was an insurance company witness mr the mr falco when it came time for trial disappeared so i couldn't find him so what happened was the juror and prior counsel barely cross examined mr falco during the deposition so in reality the jury heard one hour of mr falco saying this nifty george is the be this fraud in the history of the world should have let the bad place come in or be heard before the jury at the time that the bad place motion was her court had were fourteen out of fourteen doctors saying faith so even though you know it's like a grand hope of mine that bad faith that i'd be able to try that bad faith you know i'm not expecting that's going to happen but i really hope you take the bad faith and really look at that let me just last  saying that he was under medical care yes page twenty two eighty two twenty two eighty three we did preserve the issue for exactly of his alleged disability then to page twenty two twenty three the court makes a ruling that just going through this chronologically  instruction page twenty two eighty five where i just complied by striking the route requests that the jury make that finding in the court and in fact instructed the jury that he was under the continuous care physician which was there was no evidence to support that instruction on the treating physician issue i just want to point out this despite this this circuit and in particular i noticed a couple of judge fletcher's opinions dealing with what's called the treating physician rule and this typically comes up in like social security disability claims where the treating physician rule says that you have the treating physician and the diagnosis by the treating physician is accorded super