itself that the best reading for the beneficiary is going to be there under arrest it will be used and you understand where i'm going yes i do in this case and we have the plan and then through whatever means a draft or whatever document goes out that says that your question in five years whereas appliances can that's that's obviously a conflict what significance or what can we take from th has the document was after all created by the trustees it was created by the plan you know they need errors it's it's really in there the ball is in their court they are in the position to make sure that information that goes into a document like that is correct they are they are in a position to make sure that if there is a document like that and pretend it contains incorrect information it shouldn't go out i don't know what this documents we're going to we're going to explore this and eventually did by going to trial explore the whole thing so how do we put your case in it in an air of loss if you wish with regard to th documents pursuant to what our restart says you're supposed to do to get documents my review of the record indicates that's correct that is you didn't create the document you asked for the plan you did say i want a specific document that the plan included then the plan as it exists in june of one thousand nine hundred ninety four there's nothing to warrant anybody that there's anything wrong with this plan is are as i remember the record also there's no denial that it wasn't that it was these credits that have been built up and he has to break in service now the plan says goes on to say well if you work five hundred one more hour service let's say when you're sixty four according to them and according to the plan you have to work that five hundred one hours to get that pension i don't just put you right only issue here if you freeze so you have a break in service you have a break and service under the plan it says in order for those for four years should be to rebuild a stated you've got to work five hundred one hour explanation in the summary judgment motion which they did not other than well we just infection then maybe they would have an issue to go to trial but it's sort of like a triple whammy here you get the document and we find that this as a matter of law the document in the case and summary judgment should be granted then technically i don't think they could they would have any other recourse maybe there is something else hard work and i know they didn't have all this recent stuff but usually the people who are there you know they're younger people twenty's thirty's and people in their forty's or fifty's it's kind of work is hard for them to take in so you don't see too many of them around but some wonder if people are making all these contributions you know when they're young but they never i guess there's a small number of them ever reach the point where they've got these defined benefit plan which is a different creature than they defined contribution plan under a defined contribution plan and the employee always gets what's been contributed in the defined benefit plan the very nature of requirements including the things you've been asking questions about how many years require how many hours are required per year that's a thousand hours if you learn less than a thousand have any one year break in service and once you have a one year break in service the plan is not required but the plan is not required to recognize credits that were prior to that one year break in service and that's what happened here we were to apply the ninety ninety four plan as we define it that we've been time to benefit no i don't think so your honor that's an issue that was really ever decided by the the court below never got a plan document in this case never asked for it in discovery or otherwise it's not really my question i understand i understand but even if you look at section four point zero seven need as contained in the plan which we believe never became conditioning you have to work five hundred one hours we can't we can never take those away to go back to work for five hundred one hours even next year he still gets his pension but he still has to satisfy that condition just wasn't right on the issue because we a to both the administrator and the trustees are still leader with the terms of the plan because they've gone through the process of implementing the amendments over a period of time they know how it works when it gets complicated they turn to legal counsel and say what do we do we don't understand wh because if your argument holds true the document is relevant at this stage yes if my argument holds true i don't know that the this court will accept that argument well look i'm just trying to work your arguments through because i'm trying to sort this out it's very  and specially because we're dealing with the denial of summary and how it's this is i agree it's horribly i can tell this by the courts questions how confusing this is because the record and summary judgment is not nearly as developed as the record that was that's correct so we look for that either way so we're dealing with what judge keller hadley certainly have the document correct he certainly had the plan that says if you have a break in service you or your you need to put in this case five hundred one hours you don't if you find he gets it under the document that mr beck and mr weinstock had but doesn't get it under the document which we say represented the plan then there is an issue of fact to be determined now in this determination of what the new so called new document and the old plan say with regard to breaks and serves no break break in service provisions i think you'll find in both plans it's going to be identical it's that's going to make you a lot i mean that's and that's not an issue a lot of worry council i don't care how it got he's got it it's not that i that the document was in the file it's always been in the file and you've got a plan in there in conflict the worst words the big issue where is the big issue of fact that there is any issue  you're saying that even though you have a document which is the plan of the ten year document and you have this other story document that comes out which appears to be a draft because it appears that way then there's enough to create the issue of pra of two very important issues there if you look at mr wine stocks letter requesting the plan look at the response letter as well not only was this plan sent he was to send the most recent printed version of the plan and all of the amendments mr weinstock was never able to produce that was during the course of these proceedings interesting like so he got all of the amendments and the plan in addition to this other document other things yes that's in the rock of that stuff i can get the page if you go it's all it's a letter from rochelle ashcroft in the other case called the barrios case sending this to weinstock appeal the nine hundred ninety four plan which he chose to rely work history his decisions to work or not work during the inquirer entire course of these proceedings absolutely no reliance and i think it is i think that if you are relying on something that is not the master plan document this is the perfect doctrine burke says if the master plan document you don't need to see it you don't need to rely on it because that's the that's the instrument that governs the rights and obligations otherwise you've got you've got this issue of conflicting you're going to have the summary plan description essentially displaced the the master plan document for all participants who haven't seen it that's that's going to be a result  word we don't know what what version of the plan or whether they were lying on the nineteen ninety four pla an earlier player or a later plan or later what we don't know we don't run relying on we don't we don't know precisely what they were looking at except their knowledge of what they had done over the years and how they had modified the plan only in response to what  opinion and we briefed it the simple fact of the matter is at the time of the administrative hearing where the during the appeals committee process where they were looking at the application for mr brown went along and mr weinstock letter the mistake in the plan document had not been discovered by the way mr weinstock did not submit the nine hundred ninety four plan document to the trustees during that appeals after the record as well she just know what the time that this hearing was held that there was a mistake in the plan and and you know that it needed to be explained that all occurred afterwards that's why you went outside the administrative record on that's our position each participant reaches age sixty five under arrest and he has unbroken credits he vested those credits no matter how little he's go but only under the arrest supplants so even if he's only got two years as long as he doesn't have a break he turns age sixty five he gets the pension based on two years there where they have to start when he's sixty three and it purports to be a plan of some sort and it's in response to what you requested don't you just naturally assume that that that's the document purports to be what decide for yourself whether he has that service requirement i do not believe he does i don't think still the section let's read it an employee who has accumulated five years of credit services computed as provided  should be decided on written documents and that's all we're trying to i'm trying to have you decided on four point zero seven eat it's in the record it's a legitimate document