first position statement it was on the old form and there were no medical records attached and the second form was a border to form and there were in fact medical records attached to that form those medical records show that this interim of was diagnosed with epilepsy obstructive sleep apnea in for tea just to name three conditions the problem with the second form is that there was a question where we don't know much about dr seuss what needs involvement with giving disability opinions before the board or any other administrative agencies for that matter if there is a question there is an ambiguity in a document submitted to the benefit review committee those medical records show that in two thousand and six two thousand and eight i believe twenty eleven in twenty twelve that other medical providers stated that she was diagnosed with epilepsy obstructive sleep apnea and f sweep accommodations she did receive a reasonable accommodation during the twenty ten twenty about the school year to take short naps in her office but that's not the same thing just disabled she can still work if she was still working receiving a reasonable accommodation back in the twenty's of ten twenty two and school year allowing her to take short naps there really shows that they are trying to accommodate her to tea in a struct of steam bath here once that was also had treatment notes diagnosing the central wrong with these exact same conditions and even more in the rule of twenty twelve that was the last treatment date that we have on file in this case showing her the night diagnosed with those conditions those are the same conditions that she work with all these years same condition that she worked with however back in the twenty ten twenty love the school year as i said earlier she was given a reasonable accommodation two hours you overcome those disabilities so when you look at conjunction with the fact back prior calendar school year she was given an accommodation without incidence plus the current medical evidence from dr sinclair leads the reasonable conclusion that because she was no longer being and in your true potential is it that statute does not require contemporaneous disability letter it to contemporaneously with the disability correct exactly if in if  that this person had a heart attack after being terminated and there's no other medical records going back in time certainly the board question there but in this case we have medical records in this case going back over the two thousand six hundred conditions that accurate there isn't anything in the record that tells us that is there i don't believe so i believe you and that's kind of extrapolating from the communications where the board was questioning how you can be disabled and have that determined after you're separated and swanson roseman key actual disability determination were made something streakers one year months after an application was final or after the employee was separated from  physical disability cost by disease so wasn't time after time to actually have something in the medical records than would have pinpointed what changed the next school year at that point in time we don't know what communications she had with him accounting in terms of whether point was going to be renewed and again this is a situation where you know  may not really know a lot about how here i am or works in how the how the paperwork works in a case like this so if you're going to knock people out based on their paperwork you're not doing justice to the statute let's talk a little bit about what we're doing the employee suffered a heart attack after separation and that's the only evidence that you have a case and somebody is trying to relate that back to when the person was employed i agree there are actual situations where the written certification may for all intents and purposes plead the the rules that deal with the police fund and it deals with the issue of whether or not there is a disability the actual medical question in this case the question really is was this does the law for a day prior to the members visit were for a date in the future you say that the rule requires relatively contemporaneous medical documentation from the physical exam how was the claimant claimant to know what i am question that she had continuing medical issues but the question but she continued to work with those continued medical issues that he was ill she knew she was going to be terminated there she started this process of applying for disability in fact condition this is clearly finance reporter for the medical certification and it's making it clear it's further institute intensive steps it's intended only participating employees are authorized to receive i r s disability benefits and if you look time a terminated employee can receive disability benefits there is nothing in the steps you that provides any guy heinze or rules for terminated employees to come back and apply for a dissident disability benefit it just can't happen monument was looking at was not whether or not she was disabled because my space that there's not many places in the country where you're going to continue to maintain your employment might get some accommodations to take a nap in our own commendation this woman got any nobody in the public sector would have kept her if i so i guess the question is near strain no question she was probably disabled the question is why she disabled at that during her  expectations i guess i could you i mean i guess i guess to me that the main issue you're looking at then is what date did she put on the form because in my opinion and i don't think follow the best and apply it to the law which is you have to be employed with your disability isn't heard and they found that there was nothing in the record that showed that her disability wasn't current and as mr dooley pointed out there was th was evidence in the record attached to the statement of claim doctors visits back from two thousand and nine two thousand and eight that did not support the date of disability because the central long continued to work throughout this time that the parents might point  and she wasn't disabled in a pool according to the doctor but was may thirtieth shouldn't when and when and they did i am or did take a look at the medical history as you just said and that's what i think just as burke would be asking you they took a look at it so taken as a whole shouldn't they take as a whole and took a look at all of his medical history in making their determination they worked determining whether the reason that she was unable to perform her job had anything to do with her physical disability except for a letter from the doctor that was submitted later that you know could have the case may be but it kid's take in all the medical documentation together do you think that that could have been the case she performed turgenev adequately for many many years this was the first woman ever she got up to leave and you asked what incurred in turn means you need the two conditions of the statute and the rules of i r s which reasonably interpret those two conditions of the second condition to say that somebody can't have experienced these medical conditions  temporary disability they continue to earn service credit it's as if they are still employed so this direction talks about disability benefits for employees because it seems that it would be absurd for it terminated employee to be able to apply for a disability benefit and yet incur additional years of service credit when that there are some players who terminated them is going to be the one who becomes liable to pay for ultimate pension that results from the increased service credit so the statute is clear that the individual has to be an employee and the date the disability is incurred and incur is as defined in the statute and i am year she could no longer perform various aspects of her job now the reason the inference is that that's the case because she was no longer given accommodation and disability manifested themselves to an that supports that other information besides medical information besides what is specifically pointed to the rule that counsel articulated a couple minutes ago should be considered that she was being terminated the reason given was performance that did not go into any detail as to why the performance reached a you know satisfactory while well the performance evaluation talks about a lot of different things specifically unrelated to medical issues talks about communication levels talks about failure to communicate adequately with various parents of children who  its history that was the worst evaluation she had received in private we don't have any other evaluations she had so many saving condition that she was allowed to work there for an extended period of time without incident separation but there's nothing in the supporting records to justify that i mean that guy his her diagnosis her diagnoses that she's here for years in there is all the different diagnosis that she sent for years of work with the