correct and what would you have done ask for the note and we did do that i mean that is the perec result for that conversation to happen because the employer is not going to take back somebody who's been out and leave at that point six months for her own serious health condition without a doctor saying she can come back with or without a comment it needs that now and it needs to understand what the limitations are is it that she can s if the court credits that as the only limitation in the record and that's the district court decided they said well i know she's saying she has these medical condition but the only limitation of those concerns that i see evidence of the record and the only limitation that she was advocating and in her complaint was that she had an inability to work overtime now in fact as your  understanding there was a period of time where she was representing that she could not work at all and from the perspective of the company it wasn't about it was about can you come back and work if at all and on on  district court found this individual disabled they did undertake the individualized inquiry and looked at the evidence in the record as to what this what this person's individual disability was and it cited the facts undisputed that she was able to be gainfully employed successfully at philadelphy insurance doing the same thing that she was doing for liberty mutual i know that the plane the appellant says it wasn't exactly the same complaints were less complex i don't think that timeframe is relevant you now says and to get your question about the district court it looked at the facts because it had this standard it is a lower standard than it used after the amendments a standard is can she limited to  ability to work as compared to most people in the general populace the appellant put in no evidence in the record that she met that or failed to meet that standard here's the cognitive dissonance again when she went out on leave and it was her doctor who placed her on leave it was to work is zero hours right now we're not talking about zero hours and so what the district court's ruling was essentially look and the way that the way the district court looked at it is like well i'm not going to look at this interactive process issue but listen just assume because it's the only evidence in the record and as miss hoffman is advocating that she could work forty hours a week in the circumstances of this case that's not just a substantial limitation because we have all this evidence of her ability to do the job at philadelphia today add but that goes to the nd argument if i may but no independently but but to be clear she's advocating that she could work forty hours that hold and that's just not what she was telling everybody else again sure so so to focus specifically on this is the april th date that's the date of the letter the letter that goes out to misshapen of it says please notify us when you are able to return to work if that date there are some undisputed facts if you'll allow me i'll just quickly summarize what's undisputed in the record so st she had been off work six months because her own doctor took her off work she had to cooperate to get the short term and long term disability those were applicants she submitted and documents she's made it that's fact number one the note that took her off work is s c r seventy nine it's also nd undisputed that during that entire period the only communication that undisputed fact is that when she affirmatively filled out a form to get long term disability benefit she stated that she could not engage in any gainful employment that said s e r one thirty nine that's in march one month before the letter goes out to her as asks her for information then the th undisputed fact two days before that letter she talks to allison j who was assigned to work with her in this interactive process and it is undisputed that allison j told her you need to give us a release to work that shows us what your limitations are so that we can review them and determine you know what accommodations are possible that that are one of those six and her response is also on the same point in the record she told jay and she was not released and that was two days before the letter on april th this is the final communication and there's an e mail exchange that happens the same day  j and says i'm checking in on the eighty eight accommodation she says quote if there is something additional you need please let me know to which ms j responds you stated your doctor has not released you and just the court can affirm on this interactive process because all they knew was that she was saying i'm not released to work and when give them a note the chicken and egg problem that is actually there in the law and in the regulations it is the employee who has to provide the note and twenty nine c f r one thousand six hundred and thirty point one four gives the employer the right to make the inquiry the e e o c enforcement guidance says when the disability or the need for accommodation is not obvious and that's what we have here the employer may ask the individual for reasonable documentation about his or her disability in the functional limitations and then finally there is this court's decisions  state that when the employer does not do that the interactive process breaks down and it's the plaintiff's fault and the last point that i'd like