of your questions first and i think the most important thing in this and the summary judgment issue is that there are disputed material issues of fact one of the things that i don't believe was considered by the court below which i think is one of the policy and finally and i think this is important because this goes to the time after healers are nationally terminated and got his job back we have a period of time in may of two thousand and one to october  correct you're not doing it by medication of which you can involuntarily and mr means you need case throw it up and then be right back in the breakthrough seizures and likewise there's no guarantee that just simply by make taking medication you're interferes with your ability to vary as to walk to talk and engage in any voluntary actions because you are completely involuntary at the time of the seizure and i mean that in  october of two thousand and one that interfere with his activities and we're now arkansas tension as those restrictions were not essential functions of the job and there are certainly a disputed fact issue on that when you read mr baker's affidavit testimony and you compare that with his deposition testimony you can't reconcile the two there and direct conflict with each other we think when he had seizures and you know includes involuntarily losing his bladder control her mind up in the field position not having a recollection as to the events that occurred before or after the seizure we think that shows that he has a serious problem when the seat was take place and once again the medication doesn't cure the problem and there's no guarantee that even on medication he's not going to continue to have problems in fact the record indicates that he has continued to have problems even after being on medication but there are periods of time when thank goodness medication or so that he doesn't have seizures but because he continues to ha he went through periods of time where he was free from seizures and and you're not wrong it's just you need to ask the next question and the next question is under what circumstances does that have seizures and the of the record as it exists before the court on this case the answer to that is yes and as it exists on the cases looked at the court and take judicial notice of that are just starting up through the system the answer is no lack of sleep affects the ability of a person with epilepsy to have control and it makes it more likely that you're going to have a breakthrough seizure even wire medicated  wells i mean there are horses probably disagree with you on that but you know i don't i don't know of that that it increases whether your age is a very my time is up i appreciate your attention involved two different periods of time in which mr massey was off of work and he was suing for those two periods but he is not appealing the first period of time that he was off of work he only killing that second brief four month that mr larson is talking about i haven't even seen the lawsuit yet i do know that he was terminated again because he came to work without taking his medication and was sick he violated the restrictions that he had which could obviously lead to something a lot worse a seizure there is no evidence your honor in the record whatsoever that mr mann seen he's ever had a breakthrough seizure when he's on my collar breakthrough seizure when he's on his medication he's only at risk when he can't keep his medication that again to call your attention that four month period of time he did not have a seizure when he was on medication he there's no evidence to the contrary there's no evidence  reproduction caring for him self breeding there isn't socially interacting with people that's not issued restrictions based on screen physician that he could operate power hand tools we get those restrictions and we say there's no way we can reasonably accommodate that if we tried to it would be an undue hardship because what these guys do no employer is propagated to eliminate an essential job function in order to accommodate an employee they are not obligated under the law to do that and that was an essential job function o not permit restrictions these are just temporary and we're going to monitor your medical progress we're going to see how you're doing we're going to work with you and they did and they said you know what will we evaluate you in september of two thousand and one that's what they did and guess what he was ok he had not done what it did in giving those temporary brief restrictions for a brief period of time and they said you know what i don't care if you can't if you've been restricted from power handle system going to come out let's say they did all that to somebody else that the cover form and the evidence is all still disputed that even through through mr farrell and through mr baker that that would be hard for them they couldn't it would be very difficult to be able to work under that kind of scenario again it's only a four month period of time that's at issue in this appeal right and those restrictions he had were temporary they were reevaluated and he was cleared to come back to work without restriction after he had shown you know what that's reasonable we're going to for going to follow those restrictions and i should say that in pacific railroad employees people have seizures they have specific guidelines for return to work or fitness for duty in determining deter  just another point even if mr mann seanie could show that he was stable that within the meaning well that he didn't have or that he had a impairment substantially limited to major life activity he still has to meet other as employees and to dock reasonable restrictions which are only temporary to see how he was doing to make sure he was ok before letting him come back to work but that's just that's a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for what it did and then