there are two issues i would like to focus on more point on paragraph thirty nine when the when the court when the court says sufficient evidence and they are shows that the r c could have reasonably found i mean the r c did reasonably find and if the district court says there's sufficient evidence to support that finding but isn't that all we really have to do what now what's what's wrong with that under a body well there are a few things that the reason that provides is not actually the reason provided by the court points to certain activit doesn't say how the distance that would cause her time right but it did but the fact that she was driving fifty percent i agree that that is a lot of time that would be four hours out of an eight hour day that doesn't just the she might be driving long distances that would be an easy thing to assume but it isn't necessarily the case unless we've got some detail here on that that's actually right there's not much i mean she's making a she's making a number of stops yes you're right and we don't know really any about these videos we don't know anything about the dog either that the court found that the lack of a full a very view was cured by going to providing certain evidence with a reply brief however that evidence wasn't provided to address the fact that she loved her dogs or  good morning jury friday playing for the defendant of the day or corporation disability benefits plan first of all with respect to the standard the what the court actually said about standard is at a contrary verses from or so when the district court later says that you are so you reasonably found it is simply applying the correct standard that this ninth circuit has determine the case said opposing counsel's time of jordan talks about the any reasonable basis test any reasonable basis test was in fact done away with it was the old sort of judicial rule on the smoking gun and if there is a conflict at the cigarette maker it's the burden of the claimant to show that prejudice was a smoking gun the reason the claims administrator found the way it did and that if the claimant couldn't show the smoking gun that jordan presumption dropped away in the ministry his decision would be held on any reasonable basis right determination if the fur the district court simply deferred to the reasonable findings of the or a c and the record is amply supported in this regard  point is until they get the final letter she does know what the committee is thinking she has just no benefit they haven't explained anything to her they keep telling her of the benefits that she's not support by the benefit keep citing to her definition but they haven't explained anything to her and they tell her that she can appeal if she provide additional information but she has no idea what it is they're thinking so she doesn't know how to respond to them and all of a sudden final letter they got this paragraph on dr hennessy and there's no opportunity to rebut it there's no opportunity  well let me explain explain about the dr i understand how dr going to see might my conclude from this but if dr hennessey had known all of the true facts he might have come to a different conclusion that's what i'd like you to know at this point so what she's supposed to do so two two things here are first of all she's told four separate times to submit any objective medical evidence she has a disability any objective medical evidence she's a doctor she has submitted medical evidence in the past she's required to the plan to be currently under the care of a physician if she has medical evidence of a disability the cases say she's got to go out and get it and supplied the minister which she didn't do she didn't she didn't submit anything because she wasn't even to the care of a physician she hadn't even gone to a doctor yep or only treating physician since may tenth so by that time in july july thirtieth which is the ultimate denial letter from pre death chael she had been under the care of a physician for two and a half months so that's another qualifying condition for benefits under the plan which she failed then she submitted an appeal letter says i will send send to you separately my psychological notes which she never send she sends a second letter saying well i'll send those to you if you think they're important which we don't know that it's and it's good condition plan for work related stress so she never sends us further more so she she has been told several times what she needs to do furthermore when she finally does file this action she has legal counsel representing her they attempt to augment the record not we would disagree with the way they did it they did move document the record but they submit  to paragraph saying yes as of may two thousand and eight and i know as he brought him over he was disabled so this is four years after the fact we would say that that was didn't even exist at the time the benefit she by the time that this litigation was filed clearly she had seen the scenes final determination she went out it responded to it in a way that she thought would change the old spent finding in the case and several times  determined she was disabled as of the point in time the benefits were terminated ultimately even if we look at all of that it's and we have two different dr notes now saying one saying yes she was disabled as of that time one saying she wasn't we know that we don't have to defer to the treater this isn't a social security case as many of the cases as you bring him cites are so ultimately would you have even on it augment to record is sick we would say a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence the evidence the ears he had before it at the time contemporaneous with its decision or physical therapy notes from two different providers many of which say she's feeling better a note from her own physician saying feeling better and no point and i think this is key and not ever addressed frankly from ms of brahim is she never submitted anything saying she couldn't work at no point in time  submitted anything by the time the benefits were denied saying she can't work she can't do this job here or the functions of this position she can't perform even even gives last four years after the fact doesn't say well here's why she's third and the pinpoint is nine sixty seven it says where is in this case the plan gives the ministry discretion ministry has a conflict of interest we don't dispute existence of a structural conflict which is common we are to judge its decision to deny benefits to evaluate whether it is reasonable reasonable does not mean that we would make the same decision we must judge the reasonableness of the plan administrator skeptically whereas here the administrator has a conflict of medical opinions and we just to make all final factual determinations of the plan we don't even have to wait and hear there was nothing on the other side of the scale the only evidence at the time the terminations decision of her was and she was not t if you could begin with an answer to my call if we with was with mr stein which is you were allowed an opportunity by the district court to get additional information that was not in front of bayer it was not in front of the of the r c and that included the lyrical warning and an additional letter from dr yes so if you are telling us that you didn't have an opportunity because she didn't know what she had to say in response to dr hennessey enough final september thirtieth letter why wasn't that cured by the opportunity the district court gave you to submit additional information well your honor it is no information was submitted in response to defend its response brief where they allege that there was no objective evidence of her illness and we were arguing that there was  to you to provide additional information as a corrective to the error that they are committed why didn't you why didn't you just throw it all if this would have been simple to come forward and said in an eight hour day she drives fo hours if she's got to go from newport beach to santa monica and that's more than an hour yes it would that would mean that would've been simple and instead of she drives four hours out of an eight hour day she stopping at every c v s in southern orange county right had we known that we could have ended the record we would have probably lighted more evidence but since you are complaining that that the that there was a procedural error by bayer wouldn't have been strategic on your part to have said had defendants told us and it's in those letters that i talked about earlier was if you have any objective medical evidence or other documentation to support your claim it is very important to submit it with your appeal now you know i believe that's it or thank you counsel for the case just argued will be submitted for decision we will hear argument next in the united states versus