denial was unreasonable under any standard of review if that's acceptable to the court the question in this case is whether defendant you know wrongfully did not a long term disability benefit pla problem that she goes and gets surgery to fix with her neck and it's causing serious problems and it looks like there was pretty strong evidence in the record that that that saw a lot of improvement after surgery a lot of the problems she was having that seemed to be associated with that and that's to me seems to be the basis of who numbs the nihil it also looks like sort of as that problem was getting better i guess the st question i got for you this disease and there are cognitive and or a logical manifestations of this disease this surgery was necessary in order to address mostly conative deficiencies caused by the fact that the plaintiff's net vertebrae had dislocated and her skull was impinging her brain stem the surgery improved her cognitive capabilities but there was a lot more going on and both before and after that surgery and as dr anderson said to her at the i think so i hear what you're saying and that seems consistent with what the record seems to show but what the op if you know she didn't the pain itself and other problems were not keeping her from being able to work it seems like what actually caused her to finally not be able to work well we know that because she was fired up to stop working right because of the neck problem so she went in and got the and got and got surgery and sheetz does seem to see some improvements on the record indicates improvement for cognitive issues and some other issues but also does indicate this you seem to be almost having more pain right after and maybe that was because the improvement in the nerves actually feel more pain so it seems like what happened here with reason she needed she she needed it in working was because she because of the neck problems that got resolved but perhaps during that period of time other problems from the e d s sort of became larger i mean them and they must become larger because before the neck problem she was able to work right so they weren't so large she couldn't work for the next problem so if it's true that they're causing her not to be all the work now they'd a magnified or something so it's a little bit of an odd situation it seems like from your perspective if we were to agree with you or if your theory of this is correct that it is that the original thing kind of decreased and got resolved but the other problems from e t s grew during that period that seems to be  of your theory is that you know it's not exactly your honor the record shows that mr gary was suffering significant physical as well as cognitive symptoms of her e thirteen conative issues got worse as her brain stem became important the physical symptoms were there all along on and there is evidence in the record that perhaps her pain from those physical that but they weren't keeping her from being able to work obviously pursues him sounds like maybe she's missing some work and and i don't number exactly with the record that that i saw wasn't particularly clear about whether he actually got fired or maybe maybe that was part of the reason she alternately  it does seem like while they were so i'm not saying they're not significant or something but they maybe they weren't sniffed enough that she could work the thing that caused her to stop needing to work it seems like it was the next thing the next thing got some relief and there's some evidence in the record i believe there was even hope by her doctors she's getting better and we're hoping that she can go back to work yes or point and then seems like other things kind of overtook that sell so much it seems like that description i gave of the stuff that right two part question of let me answer both and the answer to the st question is this is a progressive disease and so it is not unexpected that from when she was diagnosed as the surgery is opinion was that she could not perform either the physical or the cognitive requirements of full time well practiced as defined it and her physical same identical findings and those findings are consistent throughout this record now what did was ignore all of that evidence it focused on her surgery as if that were the disability and it is understood you did that it is not her disability is the e d s and they focused on her cognitive deficiencies which were improved by the surgery but they ignore all of the evidence of the treating physicians who said consistently that she was unable to perform as a full time as a practicing lawyer now or know what  the surgery by then even though we know that the surgery was just to treat some of the symptoms of her yet whether the person exam would have done is that if and also i want to point out th and sixteen after the claim was filed that they've done it i am me it would have shown the symptoms of the x intractable symptoms and the pain that they were causing and it would have forced t right because you see you know very she's getting worse it seems like that's it seems like her some things were getting worse as her neck was getting better something for europe but it would still be some evidence right it would still be some evidence and and i think we all probably shows this april th two thousand and fifteen game as i understand it explicitly out of three surgery projection as to whether as to when the surgery what if resolved on the other hand dr dunn said is that the surge or the surge and anticipated six months of recovery period does said was that would be reasonable to say that she would be disabled for work during that time keys oh are you know he says some stuff about her not being able to perform strenuous activity but he he disagrees with other you know he doesn't he didn't mention and the judge didn't seem to have to really get in and look at those things and i think it was probably because the judge by the time the judge was looking at that was applying a differential standard it seems to jerseyan bank if you look at the analysis that the corporate form  precluded from performing her occupation of the man's but that response didn't appear in dr reports of those kind of things in a record that i don't think that the district court judge actually you know it up on we're going to get i think if my wrong about that that he did this particular there is a paragraph that says that she has u recognition anywhere in here that this woman is not just sitting there being a player or a  of being a lawyer and the cognitive requirements of being a lawyer as defined by and he opines to a medical reasonable medical certainty that at no time from two thousand and fifteen forward was plaintiff able to perform any of those physical and cognitive duties so the findings are there and they support plaintiff's claim back at lee i get some of the talk about the standard of review mean and i want to make one point that didn't come up in the court's discussion with mr miller all of the all of the points that the court discussed that point tort review our president in this record and need to explain how that or fail to apply the appropriate summary judgment standards in determining what level of review to apply but one thing that didn't come up is that there is evidence of serious procedural its st denial to its final denial and then denying her an administrative review of the final denial and even though the court the district court of allowed the plaintiff to supplement the record for the period during which she could have filed an administrative review or one available it nevertheless gave them the benefit of an abuse of discretion review when it is undisputed that didn't consider all of the evidence in the record it in reaching its decision and that they have the objective of that remedy is to put plaintiff in the position she would have been in had not violated her right to pull impairment and ask about p review on the record that it that exists or that but my rd point is this court should not remand this case this court is in exactly the same  position as the district court would be to decide whether or not ron lee deny benefits and remaining this case would simply extend for another several years