first with the standard review review the critical question is the trial course refusal to consider the handguard decision which was handed down by the district court in two thousand and two and which was affirmed by the ninth circuit in two thousand and four through various states across the country all involving dr hash white all involving similar issues over all decided by the district courts in two thousand and two that's coming to him ships and laster indicating to me that they  home turf the doctors know what they've put in their reports and they know what is going to be looked at by the district court in eventually by the court of appeal if the treating physician on the other hand scribbled a few notes writes two things down uses a few initials question of who's burden should be i think within this country you have a general public standing with an understanding that there is a causal relationship or link between stressed in job stress in coronary heart disease i think that is generally accepted by the to provide scientific evidence to she denigrates their minority position that there is no relationship between cardiac disease and stress problems i think in a different minority i think it should be their burden to show that there is some basis for that opinion what do you base that position on again i'm referring to the last two versus reliance standard case three forty four f or three eighty one which takes that position that is the administrators burden because they have past twenty years around or pardon me i don't think there's any evidence that was relevant to the current medical condition and i'm not sure that that's really relevant anyway as to whether he is suffering from a permanent disability the question is whether he can question is what  distress is that it that the stress of work he can't perform his job because of factors that he created no you know your own well so even if that was relevant which i don't think it is i don't think that's true that's probably me blaming the victim usually i think about one fifty over ninety there was evidence of hypertension tension for years and it was a list of medicines that he was taking a doctor's prescription which i assume included high pressure med high blood pressure medication there often necessary carrying out a job duties that was the definitions they lied to determine whether he could perform his job duties they never actually made any attempts to find out what his job duties were as carville's noticed the only correctly determine if he was disabled they were required to actually analyze what his job duties were and compare them to his physical capacity and the fact it's well but if you buy their basic story which is take the doctor the basic just let me back up one thing that there is some question i think raised by the record as to what extent these decisions were actually made by dr parker hash way in both instances in which he made a decision there was actually a prior  history of building up plaque or whatever it is the causes of the arteries and he's had problems are with us but at the moment there's no evidence that there's anything wrong with  the real issue is what likelihood is that this cycle has appeared in the past is going to appear again if he continues to work that's really the question right because as of the moment he can only pick up ten past a probably run ten miles but that's not the question june fifteenth in june twenty sixth and june twenty seventh those are all internal memorandum questioning whether mr cantor was even disabled notwithstanding the surgery so it seems to me that they were to find that you know preference had a company wide scheme to deny claims and if i recall correctly the hang our decision specifically pointed to the fact that this scheme involved claims arising in california i think it's pretty much put together the fact briefs analyzed the record all the evidence that's relevant the district court orders presume correct and the factual findings made their interview go through the clearly run the recent ninth circuit jordan opinion is instructive and in a lot of ways is right on point jordan vs northrop grumman long term disability plan was decided after the close of briefing or at least after my brief was to a private life sclerotic disease is not typical i assume he was referring to the same thing i'm referring to this is an unusual situation and then he says such statements applying seems to me to be a generic statement i eat this job stress is not a factor anybody who does anybody has doctor says he shouldn't do this job because of his heart condition and job stresses i'm going to fight against regardless of what the strongest evidence of their physician say look this person should not be in a situation because i believe job stress is going to accelerate the process of heart disease they're going to get the same there is no real light there is no relation there is no analysis in this case in the hind and relating it to the specific circumstances the history and so there's also no i wouldn't accept that but let me say something first there's also job you know or being a janitor is too stressful a job for me and isn't that isn't an analysis required of me to say i mean you can say oh you have being a judge a stressful job it may be for me but not for ninety well designed long term i mean all those qualifying words studies showing that stress is related to cardiac problems yes i think the company should look at making a judgment as if he was a researcher but doctors don't necessarily operate that way they have to make judgments about what they would advise their patient given the available knowledge and the question is is an abuse of discretion for  advice people because the way risks are calculated by doctors they would advise you not to be working at this job ok i will answer your question i want to make a couple points and while i'm getting to the answer the that when somebody has some specific concrete evidence of mr kant having stuff in john enough or something like that or having to get medical treatment because of something that happened on the job and there's medical evidence supporting  this is it goes back to them saying that dr kay back not contributing to the record at a certain point at all and we don't the only hard you know prominent wife asked a cardiologist to look at that's the proper specialty that's very significant under the jordan case and other so i think it was conning him if he was a physician there's a lot of times there's a consideration in the doctor cases about whether it's safe for the physician to practice to do surgery when they have these conditions which doesn't apply here just a couple of quick remarks after ashley seems to draw some distinctions between hypertension and stress i'm not sure how one does that since my understanding that job stress creates hypertension but he appears to have this mental distinction between the two he would die if he worked and yet his disability benefits would give him nothing but he has got the point factors have said in his initial report that dr that mr cantor could return to work if he recovered there was no definitive statement that he they did not solicit any information from him they did not interview him they did not do a vocational search they did it one point referred to a psychologist who essentially said gee i don't know i'm going to leave this to the cardiologist and sent it back dr cash way so there is not nothing in the record to indicate that he probably didn't get anything to find out as to mr kent what his job was what the stresses were and why