the insurance company responsibly dealt with the claim it's not the insurance company's not responsible for bad faith just because in the end adjudication goes against them that's correct you posed the question for whether she's entitled to to an award and the result of the jury trial was that she was although there's an issue hanging over that but that doesn't answer the question you're trying to was certain was now what made the insurance companies denial of that c in the first instance something and bad faith right and the way that i can most easily show that as my reference to these two reports well maybe but that's going to be kind of a long shot because disregards the surrounding universe is what the insurance company relied upon and if you come in and say well my evidence says i when that doesn't answer the bad faith question it's the same problem the question is isn't it it's reasonable to rely on these two reports no again you've got it backwards it is not what the plaintiff's claim is based upon is did the defendant have enough to be able to say look we're not go if you put these two documents side by side the most cursory reading shows that there are inconsistent with each other now we that ankle pinkish they had some difficulty it appears getting her information and then their peers to be disagreement among various people is to exactly what was going on here how does this amount to the very high standard bad thing well this is a motion for summary judgment so any issue which is legitimate so it doesn't take much to start raising some questions about how carefully the insurance company read these reports because at least one would think there would be e star found this is collier was disabled from working in her own occupation first decision so if collateral  its conclusion that your client did not have a fair opportunity to litigate based upon her her physical pain and ability to afford counsel it's been argued that the standard is not whether you availed yourself of the opportunity but whether you have the opportunity and i'm waiting to find out what it was that she didn't have a fair opportunity for litigated that time instead you're telling me about insurance companies decision which seems to me going to be the point so why didn't she this is a pretty standard disability type of policy so you have a period of time under which she is given a more lenient standard which is her occupation and then after a period of time it's which is to a more stringent standard which is any reasonable occupant right and so it's that just a minute with judge clifton was talking to you about was not the first period which had pas xoom you don't disagree with their position with respect to the first period since they provided your client with benefits right that that is out of the picture the second period is what is accommodations provided through the interactive process that is part of these disability retirement hearings whether or not the county could create accommodations sufficient that she could do her regular occupation because that's the test that they're looking at or whether she is permanently incapacitated from there and that is different and she had a hearing she right and she but it's a fundamentally different issue than the one under this insurance policy which is whether or not she care were without the it's more of a completely different issue it's as it is as it is the to say on occupation in any occupation and the any occupation that they say she can do is her own occupation but california one two thousand and that in that case the core pointed out that even where the plaintiff version of the facts creates a genuine issue of my ability that does not preclude the court from making a finding that for purposes of whether the insurers investigation was reasonable and done in good faith that it may it may proceed to look at that faith as a question of law the other important part of judge conti's opinion on bad faith is that the it is the test is not whether the what was reasonable what was appropriate to assess the scope of your situation it's also important to note that with regard to the its efforts to obtain the medical records from panama that simply did not have any medical records as collier was in panama f march of two thousand and eight to the fall of two thousand and nine and so even at the time that it records decision in april two thousand and nine terminating her benefits initially it didn't have those records from dr takes it was very important that it exerted necessary efforts to get the records translate them review them provide them to the medical physicians even if even assuming hypothetically that miss collier did present physician before she went to panama and other physicians which treated her before she went to panama but even if even if those positions have a good faith basis for their opinions that only leads to the existence of a category of full and fair opportunity there is a reasonable uniform checklist that is did the claimant have the opportunity to present evidence present expert reports testify under oath represented by counsel served as governor so forth all of those opportunities all of those procedural rights were otherwise under counsel's theory collateral stoppel would have no particular meaning because as in this case if the claimant could have done something different or could have done something being represented is a is a factor it also allowed her to challenge whether she had a fair trial and if that decision was affirmed and there was another right of appeal from there and  medical care she received that consumed almost twenty pages of transcript dr sue was the medical witness call she had an opportunity to not both listen to his testimony and ask him some some questions about his report and of course about his she did not meet that standard even though there's a preference favoring a great thing about office the very same records medical diagnoses and physicians were present at that in this case but what i believe those are two appropriate questions the the one of the reasons that the burden was lowered before the i'm serious that is that the way in which the  is actually a lower standard than proponents of the evidence and there is also case law confirming affirming that the purpose the entire purpose of the retirement boredom and the frontside side is to provide the best opportunity possible for employees to obtain benefits decision to retain or retire and employ again has not only on the employees ability by the accommodations which the accommodations is that if you don't offer enough accommodations you're going to retire there first that's a different scheme than this insurance for us yeah i don't understand your point county is willing to do are what would be consider you know reasonable accommodations out in the community which is this those are accommodations which are available for one person in yeah there's one job that you can hand that doesn't mean that he's competitive in the job but the issue for your client was not whether she'd be competitive in the job market if she could get her own old job back that was enough wasn't  time the employees making special concessions whatever they're working despite the pain to say half to if she could have gotten her own job back why should the insurance company be expected to pay benefits on the theory that she couldn't get a job because she could have gotten her old job