given to it by the defendants it the interpretation first of all the defendants tell us that they didn't they didn't understand what the judgment meant until after the judgment was written than there's more money involved i'm substantial amounts of money that are owed to the plaintiff how much it's in my in my reach to the to the trial court i don't believe i said to this guy i think it's that we haven't seen i'm sorry were additional offsets coming that we haven't seen well he's still getting social security and he's still getting it if that's what you mean the worker's comp i think is going to say the opposite you're saying that that if you did it your way that is the monthly off sent way right there would be some and some net amount of disability benefits to for your client yes both retroactively and prospectively yes and we don't know what that is but some you have that i could look it but the way they what do you what do you have for us to come to your understanding of the way the plan should be administered in other words as monthly without any  overage for each one why do i say that you know what point us to where in the plans what in the plans have they buy it ok first of all it should be done that way because that's the way they always did it and i gave t deciding what should be paid each month we're just citing what should be done we're trying to put the world back together with as it was all the screwed up ok well we know how they can calculate regular benefits every month because they've done it twice and i gave you both examples of that that they the first time when they denied him when they first agreed that he was entitled to disability benefits they said three thousand some odd dollars because it covered the period before he started getting social security in other words they didn't hold the three thousand dollars to be offset against future benefits also when they are well they've calculated that after the the workers comp of the first as well of course you'll have to ask them but i think that's what they can see they didn't never they never argued against as far as i can remember now he just disagreement seems to be whether the judge ordered that you pay everything  the judgement controlled or whether or not the stork practice on the language of the plans controls well the no i said it or is it whether or not to judgement meant the sar practise to control i think the judgement mean that they should follow their practice or go where they always do it because the judge me said take all appropriate or in some of his prior rulings appropriate offsets not all offsets are appropriate and end and he sent it back to the plant for then to calculate it because they're the ones that do the calculation and how is the plan supposed to do the calculation other than the way they normally do it well is is that you know our human rights argument that by referring to offset he was it would have been an easy thing to do just to say that in the judgment it would have been an easy thing to do just to do it himself the numbers i mean he certainly did refer to offset so it's certainly it's clear the judge fees contemplated that there would be some some offsets made to kind of put everything back where where it where it belongs but it didn't appear that judge fees or anybody else at that period had any idea what those offsets were going to be and how they have calculated how could the judge of calculated that so he returned he says appropriate offsets whatever's appropriate under the plan whatever you guys do do it in this case right right right but the numbers were wrong well most of the numbers were no well they may not been known to the judge or maybe doesn't it doesn't it doesn't appear that anybody had really sort of done the number crunching as they will if we do it this way this is the way it's going to come out if we do it that way this is the way it's going to come out it might have been very helpful you know five years ago four years ago for the parties to have said well here's if we're going to do off it sets here's the way here's the way it needs to be done now you you made an argument in two thousand and fourteen to judge face that the that any offset should not exceed the amount of the monthly payments that you missed that you made the case because we're going to get everything back they knew that i wanted to show judge means that there's authority that they don't have that the court doesn't have to make sure that they get everything back that there are cases dealing let me  question a little differently and i may have a slightly different question for my colleagues so let's assume that there that there was some discretion in judge pieces order about how the offsets were to be done and the plan calculated the offsets took every offset that was available to them took it in in lump and that that we didn't think that that was an abuse of discretion we think we think it's within the the contemplation of judge faeces order  and that it is that is not an abuse of discretion for the plant to do so and that that's bad news for your client all the way around ok at that point are you asking this court for equitable relief and if so what are you asking yes i'm asking that and i've given you that both of those are not true so if i think if i think that the award as a matter of law is correct or are or are must be sustained what is the equitable argument that you want to make that they shouldn't do it anyway that this man has been fighting this battle for twelve years to try to get this all straight now that he was forced to take the the pension early pension just to be able to live and support his family that now that he's won his case and proven them wrong and it took them ten years to do that and another that he shouldn't be in a position where doesn't just the way you treat everybody else yes or can i also point out that the idea that he has received all of his he's been put back in the position he would have been had they given him that's not true he's not getting his life insurance he's not getting the premium he paid on his life insurance paid back to him they never gave him credit for that at all he had an accident disability and dismemberment insurance that wasn't given to him he's supposed to get that he even got a letter from the from the company after he won his first case saying you're going to get all the benefits of of a person disability but then you have a letter a you're your life insurance has been things for not paying the premium well they were paying the premium all the time by deducting it from his from his a pension but now we've got no life insurance or anything   less or any other questions i like to reserve my time for plaintiff first you have to calculate it right then you will eliminate it meaning you don't offset it but you pay it to the applicable trust yes so therefore you do have to calculate the offset and and he seems to be talking offset and give it back to the retirement plan it seems pretty clear it is clear your honor and it's clear in our favor if i can why why because using the term offset in the context of the plan and telling you to calculate how you as if you were doing it permitted under the plan must be eliminated that's what's unusual he's the only participant where that happens ok that's where he's fashioned but he still wants to calculate it as if it was an offset he says that but your honor it's not about just calculating it's about what happens with that offer and then you take that offset and pay into the plan but you don't take something that would be an offset but your honor the offset under the plan is a hundred percent of the retirement plan benefits if you look at but it's not one hundred two percent  calculate the off sense naturally to calculate come i'm not hypothetical but see he treats them that way if you look at the excerpts of record what eighty three to one eighty seven he runs a monthly calculation taking the pension benefit out one eighty three to one eighty seven he's putting it back in there and that's exactly what judge priest told us not to do but he would want to cause the trouble by saying that he couldn't get long term disability forcing him to  take early retirement when he tried to rescind the early retirement you said no and he said that was wrong that was error we're trying to undo the wrong you committed and you're saying basically looking at the judgment in a way favorable to us we're go penalize him again your honor i appreciate the question that's not correct first of all all walking away as even mr american image is attorney concedes we pointed out if you follow ressa you may not want this remedy because the amount of money that he said in his complaint he would return your honor in his complaint he said i will return the money i got that's in the fourth amended complaint paragraph twenty nine that's where this case and it could legal remedy that would be taking damages from general assets which is not permissible under five hundred to a three what you have to have under five hundred to a three and we cited these cases and the forty one of our brief is you have to have a fun and here the fun was created when i'm right but does does the church men say that he's supposed to be in and then first of all what you're trying to do is to get the money back from him so you're not really operating within the plan either there's nothing in the plan to say she'll go go go get money for something else back from him your honor the whole point is that this was constructed to be consistent with judge pieces orders which what the plan says because the plan says you can't on retire so he's saying all right over here i'm going to give him a remedy that cancels out reforms a provision in the plan but if i do that i also  to be to be consistent i have to tell them ignore the pension offset and so that's the language in that carry over paragraph language the plaintiffs did not object to before women would judge fees then judge  more he ended up in that situation because he had three benefits that total put him up over the top the retirement benefits were never as much as a disability benefit they were about half as much b so so so the you remove the entire offset consistent with the terms of the plan getting the fact that this is the offset that's the problem you're calling an offset the amount that  a complete repayment rather than what would have been offset on a monthly basis right and that's because judge faeces judgement does not tell us to go back and roll things on a monthly basis instead it says don't put anything in there about retirement benefits but it also says the retirement plan is further order to rescind the players for terminal lection us from it i'm at a future date to for say the whole four hundred forty three that he took before because a significant portion of that would have already been returned at this point and so what the plan would have to do when he retired is say what's left here we have to give him credit for everything that got repaid what judge peace was doing here was simply following in the judgment what he had said in his orders he was very careful in his change line stance excuse me what is your appeal judge kronstadt order that prohibited him from reopening the case that's why that becomes preclusion at that point he has lost the ability after failing to appeal both originally judge faeces order and the case and judge kronstadt rejected his argument here and said no when you look at his february order february two thousand and sixteen order judge cranston says i agree with the fence they had to recalculate the whole retirement plan so judge  that motion being filed by plaintiffs i'm sorry prior to that what are the plaintiffs had argued that it should to be relieved of the duty to repay it judge kronstadt then comes along and says in his order no you've done everything correct except for the way that you've got to tweak social security and so it's in his february nine two thousand and sixteen order and if to go back and recalculate the retirement benefits he basically says you being taxed clients just prance it said you did everything right with the exception of i want you to leading the social security aspect and i want you to go back and consider whether or not he gets an extra six months to string out the payments so judge quince that both rejected that and made it and recognizing that he was precluded under claim or issue preclusion depending on how you want to define it from litigating it after the first order and then when he looks at it here he says i think the administrative committee read it exactly correct so we've got a differential standard of review here this is an unusual case in how do you tell me i mean you would agree i take it that there is  interpretation issues in the terms of the plan under that perfect heat errors where he says that this judgment is intended to place the point of in the same position as if he had been deemed eligible for a long term disability coverage from the beginning right and he so if he had you would have been able to take those off so if he were one hundred two percent if he if he had been remember the whole reason why that comes up is in theory he wouldn't have retired so he would not have had one hundred forty six thousand dollars from the retirement plan that's actually where judge fees picks up on that and his march twenty seventh two thousand and fourteen order and that's quoting his january thirteenth january two thousand and thirteen order he's saying that judge faeces in march of two thousand and fourteen there's not supposed to be a double payment this is a double payment there's supposed to be appropriate offsets and work and return of the benefits eighteen days later he enters this judgment the plaintiff wants to come along and come up with their own reading of the judgment settlement circuit l if there's any question go back and look at the judge's orders judge piece was consistent wore the way through the case and the reason why he was consistent was it started with the plaintiff saying i'll pay it all back paragraph twenty nine of the complaint i'll pay it all back and if you need to take that you've got some cases out of the case of virginia and a couple of other places the phillips case out of virginia is i think one of the preeminent ones which you sort of gave the back of a hand to it up in a footnote in your in your brief so why shouldn't we consider equity and why should we remember thank you for raising  right also and the other argument that i mean there isn't anything in the plan that says that the reason why that happens is if you do things on a rolling basis in real time like that where you know how well he weighs how you get your then rolling basis it seems to me no there's nothing in here about  then there would have been a net amount to pay back and the social security and worker's comp would have cut off because you're not arguing that that this those two don't cut off  whatever the long term disability benefit is right those two or whatever they are they never over never never golf they never go over correct right but remember an offset under this plan never goes over that's what's so odd about what you're doing i'm so set that you actually do under the plan ever results in a net amount once once you follow the judge's order and say even limon eight any offset for the receipt of retirement plan benefits you're correct answer them together first of all that was raised in the first case it's precluded judge fees could have said that in his order he never said that in his order he never said never said judge one way or another it's had to do with the appropriate offset right and the appropriate it could it also been the case that judge that judge fees would been willing to consider a motion in equity after the calculations were made if i can your honor let me get right and i don't see anything in judge pieces order or his opinion that's and there's not going to be an an equitable solution here he already did that because what he did was allow him to unretire and the un retirement was what he said was the eighty three relief a three year hon the burrs on is where the appropriate language comes from it's in that statute and so what he's doing is saying if i just give him back the long term disability benefits under arrest it's five zero to a one b then i don't give this guy what he wants he's asking me to unretire well to unretire i have to go to the retirement plan and cross out a term that says you can retire but what i'm also going to do because it's equity and under the supreme court's decision in my college u s airways versus  i can't i can't i can't just start giving out legal remedies i have to do an equitable revenue the equitable remedy here is that the money goes back to the plan for the retirement plan because he says he wants to unretire so he said go back to square one eight the retirement plan benefits so he puts it to the side and then he says not just that it has to go to the retirement plan to make the retirement plan whole but he says shall not be paid to plan it when you when you calculate it the way he wants to and if you look at the end i really would encourage you to look at the excerpt of record of r s one eighty three to one eighty seven just as judge faeces recalculation should eliminate any offset that's the first thing he puts in there it's directly contrary to the order your honor i appreciate your time today i have run over we pointed out that this right now has to be the remedy that he wanted he played it in the complaint that he would return all of the funds that's how judge feel try the case judge he's never said he returns last then all we request that judge crime stats decision both with respect to the discretion from the plan and with respect to the legal yes in the complaint but if you take the disability benefits per month are higher than the retirement benefits per month that he was receiving so if you pay him back if you give him all the disability benefits and then for every month and calculate month by month for every month that he we see disability benefits he we see lower the pension benefits everyone he was supposed to receive disability benefits you receive a lower amount pension benefits so there's enough money to pay off the pension plan one hundred percent and then you calculate with the rest of his benefits how much can you take off in social security and the workers compensation so that the pension plan can get repaid right away and when i saw that that judgment had judging by the way was written by counsel and of he was telling us all along and he thought judge fees believed all along that plaintiff asked to give back every penny he got he should have written that into the judgment and then if you read the judgment it has to take that it looks like i interpret that to mean take that put it aside do they have first and then take all that money give it to the to the pension plan and then calculate the rest of the of the  if you have a did you go back and look at the amount of money we're talking about oh no i don't sorry i didn't but it's a good it's it's i think it's seventy or eighty thousand dollars is a significant amount of money but you're saying had two different things so you're saying there were two things that would have been appropriate what they did was not appropriate but there were two other things they could have done that would have been appropriate one would have been just talking about that is to have pay back all of their retirement plan money  and then go to the other offset the other would have been to take their retirement benefit as a monthly offset and therefore cut it off one hundred percent of the l t g that's not the same suggestions one would get all the money back to their retirement plan immediately and the other one would not because what do you know if you're reconstructing the world back to a monthly benefit as if he were that month and they're not going to get one hundred percent they're going to get a hundred percent of the pension no they're not yes they are the only if you do the pension first but yes but you could also do without doing a pension first and just cut it off because yes but whether the pension gets back it's more you know i really didn't care i mean it was as i understand that but there are two different conceptual versions and i suppose that's ok if you say that won't be appropriate but the one they chose wasn't appropriate but that they're quite different because one gets all the money back to the plan the other one doesn't well i'm not sure how the other one doesn't the monthly what if you if you calculate the social security and workers comp offsets first you then then well i that's up to them if they want to get all the money back there's a way to do it you know let me just say also judge woodcock brought up the pay the way the pay me back the money would go where since he was a didn't have enough money to cover one hundred percent of all the offsets they were going to take of future benefits from his from his of disability  benefits that vile first of all this judgement is is oh i think it i didn't think was ambiguous but it's obviously ambiguous so we're all sitting here talking about what it means if it's ambiguous why i interpreted it know the amount of money it at stake here about sixty five thousand dollars and change by ordinary litigation standards of federal district courts not very much  should i'm sort of parties considered mediation we been through all that there's a there's a no hope of a mediation in this matter it's not a lot to a lot of people but it's an awful lot to my client who's sitting there now for the last two years without case because i thought that's was it that was implied in the judgment that it was it was a an initial decision and initial calculation i think he the judge fees at that time used the word and obviously there had to be some judicial oversight involved