based on whether or not you're able to earn an income in your profession and that is that the definition of material of material meaning material meaning and  important i'm just trying to get to figure out your argument of why these two aren't conceptually the same this is difficult because obviously the judge the judge thought they were conceptually the same and that's right and we have to review so you go to page one of the policy it's conditional rights renew after age sixty five premiums are not guaranteed you can renew this policy as long as you are actively in gainfully working full time it is clear that this provision provid the requirement only if you are actively and gainfully working full time pertains only to the right to renewable after age sixty five and then until age sixty five all you need to do is pay your total disability but i'm having a lot of difficulty with the partial disability as i understand the part of your policy the litigation is going to help at all because that was not an issue there correct in terms of residual yes yes so we're talking about this policy itself and in looking at this just seems to me the judge george may have gotten the wrong paragraph at least that's argued and i've read it and there may be a point i'd like to have you focused on that issue if you will is that that's pretty close where you know thank you the total and the residual disability provisions are intertwined and here in the power of your case as the court correctly points out the issue that was clarified and resolve was the question of whether or not richard karr is totally disabled that issue was resolved against dr car and  finding was made that he was not totally disabled based on that he's not entitled to any benefits including residual disability benefits because the evidence confirms that at the time he sold his practice he was not totally disabled depends on in order to arrive at the residual disability benefit the calculation requires an application the difference between one's prior income in your occupation and the terms your occupation are monthly income in your occupation for each month of residual disability being claimed that refers to an income in an occupation in other words one must be working two or more in that income which is then applied or multiplied the difference between the prior income and the current monthly income is the percentage that's multiplied to arrive at the residual benefit let me give you a hypothetical that is a little different from  that a person has a dentist for ten years and intends to be a dentist for another thirty years but decides it's time for a sabbatical and instead of going to law school goes back for continuing temple education and writing a treatise on mowers and and continues to pay the premiums under the age of sixty five no question they're not abandoning being a dentist but for a year they're not going to earn anything that that person becomes fifty percent disabled because of some costs and illness or something are you saying that this policy doesn't apply to them that they are unable to get any residual benefits even though they are still in the broadest sense in the occupation of densest and that they can't look back to what they were earning the previous year i don't think so i'm saying that in order for that person who would not qualify for total disability benefits in order for here achieve to qualify for partial or residual benefits he or she needs to be working and he or she would but in my in my example the person is not working sabbatical for a year so you're saying that person is not entitled to even though they are still in the occupation of dentists they're still not entitle because they're not actively working and you get that from pay change from the calculation correct and from the implicit reading that the policy as a whole in context under your hypothetical someone who has for important or materials of stansell duties who's unable to perform one of those d can decide i'm not going to work at all and thereby i will have a one hundred percent loss of income and thereby collect total disability benefits and that's not how these policies are intended to work you know what why wouldn't that person be able to say if i weren't on sabbatical i would be able to work half time and here's my doctor's note explaining why i could only work half time and i'm entitled to fifty percent i'm not asking for a hundred percent but why wouldn't that person be entitled to fifty percent because these policies are covered by the  my hypothetical person is only asking for what i think we can't do and i don't understand why that wouldn't permit coverage they've paid their premiums and they're saying i if i were still actively working are the fifty percent to sample so i want that fifty percent i'm not asking for the park it's my choice i'm asking for the part that isn't my choice i would again refer the court back to the calculation of residual benefits which takes into account a loss of current income the difference between the current income earned and in your hypothetical there wear this to the work you want and if you turn the page on page nine there's the residual disability monthly benefit and that's the actual formula and you have the loss of monthly income over the prior monthly income refers to the difference between the prior monthly income and current monthly income and each of those definitions both prior monthly income and current monthly income refer to income in your occupation  quoting the difference between prior monthly income and current monthly income so you need to read these different provisions to apply them in the calculation formula i mean i'm having some clown i'm glad you understand to is conditional right to marry new after age sixty five now mr dr carson not over sixty five apparently i mean there's a good record doesn't show us and i tried to go back to when he paragraph and we don't have to get into all of this and that the answer is a very simple one or is there something else we need to know i'll answer it this way i believe judge george made the right decision may not necessarily be the right decision based on that provision in the policy i think the decision is correct because there has been a resolution of the issue of total disability because that issue is that i mean i'm not i'm not quoting the total disability i'm talking a part full disability and under partial disability it looks like that even though he gets into difficulty physically you can get the continuation just by raising that you can't do it after he's sixty five you can do it before so why doesn't that answer the question and you can con because what we're talking about earlier is if he's not totally disabled in order to collect the residual disability benefits it's our reading of the policy that he needs to be working and in this case he's not working that's admitted by that's undisputed that he has not work so what you're saying is the judge george was off off the track when he started quoting from this section but even though he's off track there we can affirm him for some other reason as we interpret the contract he also made the determination that because you wasn't even before the paul revere they paid all the partial disability pay there was no issue but it is and stop all because the total disability finding was made and it's undisputed the doctor cars not return to work lose i would agree to an extent but he doesn't have to be working full time the understanding is he can be working part time but in your view yesterday working in order to collect residual disability benefits that's correct and so you have to be right about that unequivocally under this policy to win and the procedural posture of the it can't be ambiguous i believe that's correct another word has to be working in order to collect residuals right you have to be unequivocally correct about that proposition to win i believe that's correct ok thank you thanks for knowing about this policy that's very helpful but i why they cancelled the policy after the reason we see all disability i see the policies well it's not clear but the way the policy is written i don't think you can screw it that you don't he doesn't get benefits if you if he is not totally disabled at the time stops