congratulations get back to work employees on the floor as a tool for be supervised i learned that came from my client during her from her depositions and where is that in the record no i'm sorry strike that all right no i mean no i misspoke but i can address that and i think i know you're going with this i may well where i'm going with it is if you listen to what i said square is that the record civically that then if that is not in the record what is in the record here that it that it is standard practice to place these people you can't do that your honor we mentioned earlier elsewhere and i don't remember the talk and we're in the break but we did mention that the client forgive you can it's door the record you know what that means no sir it's outside the record you can't do it yes here is the point even if that information is not a lot on the record even if that information just simply doesn't exist it's not relevant it's not relevant because then why is it in your brief we were using this as an example sir ok we were trying to mislead or that's saying you're do over the course of ten days roughly ten days after she's provided the notice to the agency they conducted two e mail spam searches and they did one comparison list they are supposed to provide not read those e mails and that the he asked where there was work that she could do and and spelled out what her limitations were so i'm still not clear as to what they were supposed to do that they didn't do  had to be a little bit more consistent with the e mails that they were sending out well you mean consistent more plentiful they needed to do more than just twice over the course of three months which actually was twice within ten days of the course of  it more than twice what cases that you have to do it more than twice i don't believe there's any case that's on point it says whenever a job becomes available and whenever a job becomes available you can't tell that from the following week the following month or the following weeks that a job has suddenly become available to she could do if the agency is only used regularly looking so they have to do what nearly every week i would say every week at most two ok so apart from that what else do they do they also found to do an an agency look at all possible jobs that could be modified that would allow for a return to work they didn't do that the record is void of well they didn't ask about work they didn't ask about positions write emails asked about whether there was work she could do which would imply that they're looking for a specific position but they don't talk about modifications or that i don't know why you read that as an address in specific positions they again but they only did it twice or ten days while i was out for three months and then when she returns first actually i go back and to what you're saying about the work the agencies never offered any rationale and never argued all oh yeah well when he please say were we mean anything we just simply said we sent this out and that's that and therefore we met our obligations by it's close to be an engaging process between  injured worker and the agency about getting her back to work whether it's a modified position or a position with a regional combination she could join her job had she been given an air conditioned vehicle which just constantly mysteriously disappears here and there the agency and after only noted in its record or in its brief sees me that my client at the time of her sufficient you should do something different you should do it more often and she raised the question of whether email should be sent more often i'm not sure in the record if you was aware of the emails being sent i can't i'm not going to articulate something that i'm not sure we're confident about of providing the facts before the court so there's nothing in the record to show that she's not doing what's required and the need to do something different i don't recall i'm not saying one way or the other ok o cases and you know she's not getting any help she's being attacked so who she's supposed to go to if the agency is not going to assist her is being attacked yes i don't mean to sickly with a knife but she is being placed in concert situations that are putting her health in great risk well i thought this was it had to do with what her situation was before she returned to work she's back at work now she's back at work and she and she's now under after she returned she was put back on medical restrictions that was given a lengthy return without medical restriction sorry i thought she returned without medical she did return without do was follow its own regulations it has to look for a job when ever available that cannot be simply once or twice over the course of ten days year to week at the outside so you understand our standard of review of the findings all up in order to determine to reverse we have to determine that what they've done is not supportable by the record how is your personal belief and reasonableness supported in any fashion either by the evidence or by the law because of  and by not looking for a job given that she already has prior given the fact that there was fear retaliation if i may when she fell the day after she filed her e e o complaint that is when the day after is when they stop searching foreign force decision for the following two reasons first the agency conducted a proper search here they look for bell position and work including task that to see whether or not they met i only have one question a of the jurisdictional task to determine whether or not the person to be party to challenging the factual determination that she wasn't the at the top of the media factual determination that she was indeed suffering from some sort of heat related were not disability in the short as the short answers were not challenging at the time because that she had a compensable injur actually look at the facts in time as they occurred it was just important here since a little bit different maybe than your run of the mill part for us aeration case because i think some page one fifty three of the record on september fifteenth two thousand and restoration so maybe that is why i think it's fair to conclude and reasonable under the circumstances of this case that is why there were no further searches on have you know fast forward to december whatever happened essentially and september became irrelevant whatever that might be in the particular case but under the modifying position to promise a someone with a disability is something that is required i'm not sure that the board is recognizing that in the latent and i think the question is in searching for these positions doesn't the agency potentially have an obligation to say well is  a position that could be modified to accommodate the limitations that this individual has and while there was a request to see if it was worked with could be the there's a certain employees in the sense substantially the same as they would under the rehabilitation but i don't see it that's what i'm not sure but i find later a pretty confusing paragraph fifty it talks about we agree with the administrative judge the creation of a unique position to  individual's medical fix is not a reasonable accommodation well i don't know exactly what that meets i mean if there were some if a position could be modified in a minor way to the system the arm of the person could so so they know that that that they may have to modify slightly in order to to accommodate to be honest i don't know the question  last maybe the internal rules aren't as clear as they should be just as the board's decision are clear as they should be perhaps under these circumstances the e mail should say you know here are the limitations  think the other thing too is that when an employee makes a request or regional commendation to an agency they don't need to use the magic words i'm making a regional competition request the agency needs to look at the totality of the circumstances and determine when an i medical restrictions and says i can't do my job can you help me they're supposed to look on the basis of the fact whether or not that request was actual result home edition so under that guys if you look at the even those that were sent by the postal service essentially that's kind of what they're doing it reasonable accommodation this is her limitations do you have any worse yes definitely that would make it more clear but i think under these circumstances and again mr milliken maybe more light on this but i think it's fair that you know what the agency was doing is really essentially trying to accommodate her and in terms of the accommodation here really this use is about the search whether or not the search was arbitrary and capricious as a ministry of defense said miss south did not challenge the of the search where it was conducted or its results a claim that the doctors restrictions were somehow not really the doctor's restrictions in other words the substance failed to meet her burden to establish my non frivolous allegation that in fact the search was improper email know that something related to disability limited duty and special terminology within the postal service that re first two individuals who have partially recover from a compensable injury so that's  notification there to the recipients who are dealing with somebody with a disability there and then she said look that the employees are available for work and asked whether the facility has available work for the following employee and that is consistent focusing on work which is more specific than some sort of position that's consistent with the postal services internal rules and regulations which give employees even greater protection hundred and what your argument is but it seems to me difficult for you to argue that this is clear i mean what these e mails perhaps should have said is that the  position in addition to asking whether there's work available is there a position that would be reasonable modification she could fill with her restrictions and that would help the recipients of the e mails understand better what does require i think it's a very difficult to argue that this is clear well may be sufficient but i don't think it's clear then before you answer again let me interject the same question i asked the other and that is other set an example that page one ten both use that phrase limited duty now we don't have in the record for example testimony from the recipients of the e mails on whether they played they understand that or not but limited duty does have a very specific most able to find unlikely right now but that's so that when she was she's saying is this doesn't tell people that if you have a delivery room was in the end that's that's not air condition that you should divert an air conditioned truck it's just not clear how can you say that it is clear that the recipients of this email would understand that that's what they're supposed to do  right was that the e mail didn't reach didn't restrict the type of tasks that the recipients were to consider aside from the medical restrictions but left it open to the managers who received that e mail and who are most familiar with the particular work done in their facilities to look at these restriction and so you're saying there now you're saying the very precursor is seventy eight eighty five degrees so that they have to filter it test through the through their work requirement and start with that very beginning so if there's not an air conditioned drug for example you don't into that category that work is not available that's right i mean there's the the recipient's right would be the medical restrictions and then working from though having to say now a quick point on the air conditioned van i just want to clarify that the record does fact show that the south had an air conditioned van at the time that she suffer heat stroke that is that page ninety two of the record on her patient history her van had functioning air conditioning on the on the day in question and come to completion by the time that happened and of course the board found no allegations to substantiate any claim of discrimination or retaliation thank you on the staff thank you we've gone can go back to work i don't see how these jobs are worse being discussed how these jobs can be altered i don't see where those discussions of jobs other than possible are simply keep your i mean that's all we've been hearing medicine are you familiar with the manual yes cited by me as kid miller yet she says informs the recipient with which they're supposed to be familiar so that when they receive an e mail like th they they read it in white and there are other required no i'm not sure where i see how that e mail ties directly to that our actions of the e l m there's there's nothing in there rehabilitation issue here on saturday week we've got you know this employee with these conditions can anyone you know put her in a job when i didn't see was sort of the reverse is there a job that can be modified that would quoting certain present provisions but i don't believe there is a a complete attachment of the provision if i'm understanding your question correctly