the district court entered judgment favor of sunlight this court really made the claim that based on two factors one was a change in along on the standard of review but also the court wanted the parties to address in more detail the surveillance the district decided but it's still important to look at what the district court decided to know why it was wrong the district court in this case said it was given extra weight to be opinions of those doctors that actually right to it i just think that for the court to say that it was relying on the treatment of the examining physicians or why mostly on dr murphy who never even examined shows that that decision was wrong but you're right you're out of the question is what  record which is kind of like rule fifty two so if you're going to fifty two motion you're asking the court to make credibility findings and that's going to be reviewed for abuse of discretion we never submitted it to the court in that manner but i think the other thing to look at your honor is the risk of cases based on administrative records the driving record there's no wide witnesses coming in so what you have found is the district court is in a sitting position is this want decision that's my understanding of the court's internal operating procedures and that that system p c doesn't move anything on the wall goes but i also think that the judges are in as good a place on this panel as a district court judge to review the the record and if i can find it in the time when i sit down i will send it on it will send it along to the court following the hearing just to fill in the missing information but i think the important point here your honor is it is still ms gross's burden of proving that she was disabled  this court ask her to do the same things you pointed out wrong or that she did not have her own doctors address the evidence and she still didn't doctor even was the treating doctor and there's no opinion from the premium you have to believe they went to a doctor statements that are falls on the medical side of it he says he reviewed the records and surveillance but that he doesn't bother to describe any of it he says that he doesn't address the discrepancies with the surveillance which was the issue this court symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy can vary from day to day in minutes minute and that's wrong we say to the mayo clinic and other information in our briefs that says that that's not true that  won't here's you don't need to get to that point and here's why she played it she never claimed that her symptoms varied from day to day or minute to minute that to focus on is this is what she told dr bill paul not a day to day or some time she told article poem i can't stand still without support i need assistance in all activities of daily living that one day when there may have been other circumstances when she's walking with no problem at all even taking jogging steps she's spending an hour it became more store shopping bending down which are doctor says she can't do all of these  two thousand and six seven i don't recall at the top of my head how much past that and like a lot of physicians frankly they can't stand dealing with these disability claims so often it just isn't easy to get  treating physicians to cooperate it may seem counter intuitive but it's the reality and doing the plaintive side work some doctors are cooperative others just aren't so and i know i don't support out i mean if the court said the interest rate at the we average or one year constant maturity which is of the date of the judgment july i think it's eight two thousand and six he was in interest rate a point four six percent at why interest rate but we've asked for was the massachusetts twelve percent simple interest rate which actually matches a kentucky great of twelve percent for bad faith insurance denials was appropriate and  suggests that because the district court did not give any explanation as to why the district court chose the federal funds rate that's my short and term for the federal funds rate that was an abuse of discretion the court provided particularly that this is gross said argue did some level detail as to why a certain rate should have been chosen there's prior others prior decision in this circuit that i think illustrates the point very well it had to opinion after reviewing this video evidence i do not believe i do not believe that she is totally disabled that would have been fine i think the pain goes beyond that and i now also suggest that i don't believe the record shows that other doctors except these reviewing physicians questioned her veracity she was examined i believe by two social security physicians and even her own you know true physician at the time dr regan never said you know i smell something phony here and it's not uncommon in the litigation that somehow magically all the brewing physicians find there's nothing the matter with the person that they never examined or the piece review physicians come up time and time and time again in the same files and there's a reason they're being hired so anyway i hope i answered question your again a little bit long winded so the other issue that i wanted to focus on was the attorney's fees the district court essentially cut the attorneys fees by two thirds i know it's not a good use of the time because it's in the briefs in terms of specific categories where there was  of settled in johnson versus watch regulator about what gets under that the department of labor exemption as to a standard of review that was an absolutely major decision twenty five there were twenty five years after firestone and this court said and hope is enough plans if you don't drown clear language explaining that the plan has discretionary review we're not going first circuit it was reversed essentially falling because of the gross decision of the first or good concluded that under the rose last didn't have a discretion in its plan it's just an example of how monumental caisson home gross to where the panel was split on the fee decision that was the first time since honda for circuit i'm sorry that a circuit board head ruled with clarity that reiterating that the relief that was a afforded across the board to all plan participants in the first circuit of the gross one decision and finally verifying the standard view and also making it  and if the court's going to go back and read the case i suggest this look at it very very carefully because the court for from his perspective this side this side in the case really is if it was discretionary preview because the court said well the facts are complicated and we didn't think blue cross is decision is reasonable and resembles a term that i connect wit discretionary review so i agree with my colleague mr bacharac decided on we are i think that's a real departure from existing law and getting stephanie see the court the court ultimately said it was decided in that case you know it's consistent with that procedure that their cases are being decided at a standard of clear error and will last the parties stipulate to the record district court makes up findings of fact on the rule fifty two fish circuit has some sure that the district court looked at the same evidence as before and decided that the facts were over well we'll say them ample evidence was overwhelming that mrs grose was disabled and look at grose could filler duties as an optician but district court it's rather short opinion to find that the medical evidence was strong enough to support that she was unable to work in her own occupation it was corroborated by social security finding and the court found that sufficient instance that one of the attorneys billed timing for preparing the pleading that was filed eleven days earlier the court detailed the reasons why it eliminated certain fees for example the fees concerning the they submit this report by dr murphy who makes conclusory statements that are contrary to the facts of this record they rely on this report from this trip has merit doesn't address his own inconsistent statements about her condition made which is the situation we have here and she did nothing during the remainder to address those inconsistences if i could your honor because the important point if i could address one more point please just  that is reprehensible behavior and the district court should have addressed it we think the entire decision needs to be reversed your honor and that's why we're asking this court thank you