blame them for whatever injury you report and then find a supposedly independent reason to terminate them due to being assessed the other railroads history or acting on his financial motive congress   diagnosis he reports to be an asset in other words the very day that he learns that he suffered from the chronic injury and speculated it may have been related to wor suffered importantly the app i say has what time limitation congress did not say we will protect employees before injuries or did they report in seventy two hours if congress had wanted that limitation it could have sold to waiters st there is a common station structure that essentially bonuses supervisors based on injury reported to the company less injuries equals more money secondly in one specific to the individual supervisor's been accepted ranks and supervisors based on the days lost to injury employed in reported by the employees under that there is testimony the record that these rankings are hugely important and if you want to be promoting the company you had better we finally did come forward with his injury the manager directed him to make a report when he was previously d injured in addition and did not violate the time the report rule he suffered no adverse employment action other than by job title and that shows that that was not a person who was involved in this case and it was not a person who was even involved operations management had said something that he interpreted to be discouraging some from filing a claim in the future  that that was three years earlier and someone not involved in this case that's alone enough to reject that as having any way whatsoever as evidence of the school work and by contrast again when he does come forward they're not only would not someone discouraging d as has been pointed to in some other cases there was evidence of encouraging him in fact more than encouraging him directly to make their report of an injury so so bad st argument has no way whatsoever the was never any real effort made to try to even sure like financial incentive on behalf of the people who were involved in this case but even if he had done that a financial incentive or any incentive is to some reason that i can come up with as to why you would act the way that i say you do the point is to show that the that the management the would act out of intentional retaliation and there's no evidence of that at all and then plus  to retaliate as opposed to the alleged incentive to retaliate and then there's this whole other couple of words about this whole point of looking at the incentives as alleged proof of a tele d asian i just urge the court to be but more than that point pointing out of the injury can help the railroad make sure that injury doesn't happen to someone else and as well in this case because mr nolan did in fact work for a year and a dale question for you there seems to be sort of a recurring theme in a lot of these injury cases where the plaintiffs are essentially arguing that they have a catch twenty two problem that if they get some kind of incident that doesn't really d rise to the level of what they consider to be an injury in the immediate aftermath of the incident  options are reported the injury and get fired for not reporting it earlier or not record from injury can you address that concern or sure st address that by saying that  injury the report is required to be made right away so read my responses because that is recognizing that and and then the final point is even if that argument might sound stronger in a close case this is someone who didn't report for seventeen months and the record shows over and over that he had an injury and by the time you're a year later he was actually having to ice ice the same cold every day he was having pain that prohibits or that such a requirement to timely report an injury and of course even going back to the st black or the decision you know this is something that was decided that it was stooping that was worried that if d you had been that we ask our opening argument what circumstantial evidence could mr knew and show it had not used that question because it can't mr new one has offered every kind of circumstantial piece of evidence that exists plaintiff's favor however they didn't then grab summary judgment the circuit said you get a trial they gave mr black to be a trial based on the same and actually not even as good at it as has been offered here the way it