rehabilitation very few that now and this matter was originally filed with claims michigan claims under the persons with disabilities the rights act and the federal fair there's written evidence that he has a disability disabled in other words disabled under the fair housing act so you know i group well i guess just answer that question once the st time they get written evidence of that there were and there were a number of of e mails that went back and forth between certain board members and mr and mrs romig and the board members themselves the property manager that indicated that mr the it's not difficult to make that j mr carpenter to the rest of the board i don't care what you said on account of disability even in the oral conversation she used the word disability i don't know if she used the exact word disability or i but she should mention that it was it was for to assist her father mean whether she whether she would use that exact term i can't say for sure but but she said she did mention that it was for her father because of the fact that he had previously fallen off the off the porch accommodation for a disabled individual how do you respond to their argument that this was a fluid situation in the sense that she presented a timetable that was you know pretty abbreviated i guess around the th of july weekend and so one way of thinking about it is the initials and i was in a final denial as suggested by the fact that at that point they asked for a doctor's note which july why did you get the doctor's now hermia because obviously we're going to get any any sort of traction without it but ok i thought th was maybe it was just an oral communication but i thought the way it works is you had different people with different responses to it and i thought one individual responded the way judge tranch said you know we might go to work this out of there the doctors know and that would help of the record somebody during the course of that in the course of that meeting said this is not our responsibility i questioned all the board members during their depositions regarding that and they all seem to recall that they all agreed that if they made it into the minutes as a quote that that was indeed said during that meeting but nobody was willing to claim there are so i don't believe that the board thought that they had any sort of obligation certainly at that point which would have been mid july to gather any more any question about who's going to pay for that happening preacha life st letter that was the st question that was asking my client who's going to pay for this and she immediately you know agreed to yes she understood that that was going to be her cost what if how would this case it worked out if the order had said no we don't grant this or quest with a doctor's note at the outset that that a permissible answer and therefore required them to reject the initial putting of this  handrail in and over the th of july weekend would that have been ok if they just said hey we don't do this without a doctor's note and therefore we have to postpone this initial schedule i believe that would have been acceptable  a very fact specific holding and to understand the district court's ruling and why it's accurate it requires a much more specific look at the timeline than what brother counsel is given and we'll closely at that we see that this was assumed for the sake of summary just summary judgment that a conversation took place and was as plain as described but nonetheless what we do know from that is she was instructed to submit written request and then this is not disputed and what we do know from that also we don't know if there's no evidence of as to what to what way that was related to the political association so that st request is not reduced to writing until june th we have the e mail everyone agrees this e mail june th has no reference for disability just describing the route that they want to install they don't say why there's a request for more information on june th that's met with some more information about those patients of the rail but again no discussion of disability incidents is case law talks about immediate approval is not a requirement to be reasonable so we have that we have the formal denial in july st there was some discussion here that the formula now in july st doesn't request doctors comments alluded to there's no written documentation that a disability in play for quite some time later i don't believe it's in writing until the attorney letter in june and july th but it has it may we have we get a letter and we act upon that we get a letter from a point that we realize there's an actual claim for a disability accommodation as opposed to just a rail that someone feels would be helpful so when you put all that together none of which is anything to be decided by the jury you have quite a firm basis for dismissing the suit and the accommodation plan now we have some other claims we have a disparate treatment claim that requires evidence of intent and the same timeline that that  reasonableness of our processing and the combination also establishes the absence of intent discrimination and then as as a trial court correctly noted there's there was evidence in the record that we've approved other requests for disability accommodations in this person's situation were treated poorly by the board's policies and that record just doesn't exist there was an attempt to make it exist in this was a summary judgment response of the plaintiff wanted that sort of evidence or felt that had been induced in discovery that was the time but it forward were observed in the neighborhood and discussions they've had but none of that it goes from anything that when it gets made in writing all the scene in writing was this request for rail and specifications about the rail and then somehow in that discussion the idea comes up you seems to be a why i think it's appropriate for july st when we deny this that that there's no mention of it because there's been no mention of it from the plaintiff's perspective in writing up to that point either look back at the district or state about this topic which was you can have a constructive denial by but not tonight by drawing out the process and doing doing lengths so in this case we have to return a tad but what we have is it is almost a constructive non denial when we get this doctor's letter and then revisit the entire thing and give them what they want within a few weeks period so i guess that instance some sense you could say we made a denial on july st but the cases that have suggested otherwise that that you're stuck with your st and i'll probably to some extent turn reasonless what happens that the timeframe after that because i don't think you can look at this record just the way united's done because then the fact that it was approved is kind of what would be the point of looking at it again it would it would have a chilling effect on decision makers revisiting their decision so we're going to anyway we've already by late in the act why go back driving factor from that point from the counselor was the counselor gave us a doctor's note too i think that's more important than than hiring counsel on the doctors know what's generally although we don't have the record that says when we asked for it shut she got the doctrinal four days after that di it for another month but really at some point the idea was was put out there that doctors know what made a difference and i don't know that that required she did her counsel any time so it's fortunate that that she felt that was necessary but i don't think she had an attorney get a letter mr vanderveen can you hear me you may be constructively giving back it's time to you mr brought us minimum there is certainly a question of fact as to that as to that as to whether they knew or should have known there was an over a number of factors the initial call from his tomb and the carpenter e mails not to beat a dead horse on the other board members emails and stated is is that the basis of the argument that sufficient information was provided not in the email but in a call yes sure that she she told her at the time  you know for lack of a better term or get it in for his observations and his interaction with the other party members the same thing with mr will call us and i think the one that makes the most clear is that the property agent knew that it stumbling block or the thing that was necessary was you know was a doctor's note or further documentation of the disability she said the one the one thing about i mean i must say the best practices certainly would have been for the homeowners association described but you can also understand their perspective being you know we're trying to make this not only a list why is it our obligation to tell them how to perfect their claim and i know what would have been the better thing to do but i'm not sure it's the legally required thing your honor i believe that if it were you if she had been told that she needed to know her disability it would certainly have made it was legal is think that it is at this point because the  my understanding is it's the reason why she see you one of the reasons why she went and got the doctor's note was was on advice from counsel and that you know she did she at that point in time you know essentially left that in our hands to d