related injuries obstructed delayed caused a breakdown in the interactive process in the basin is not entitled to avoid liability because it caused that breakout finally gallagher's application for disability payments were entirely consistent with her americans with disabilities that c kathman who was her spinal surgeon and physicians assistant crist who was doctor cashman subordinate when asked by defense counsel whether they would have let her return to work with return to work she said his opinion depended upon what what her duties were at her job and then in cross examination and mcallister asked doctor cash when it comes to a doctor or a physician's assistant personally we can ignore the plain language of her letter to innovation which was that among the reason that she was recommending that mcalister remain off work was because of her lifting restrictions and then there's the vague statement that she doesn't remember why exactly should put it in there and and other obligations or something to that effect your are  and so i think that the testimony from both of her treating physicians indicates that their opinions were contingent on the nature of her job and the accommodations that were available if there was no a reason to or that they want to alter their opinion doctor risk using the physician's assistant personally surely would have just said can't come off work she's completely disabled rather than say that she can't return to work due to lifting restrictions if the supervisor doctor pashman is much more direct than most testimony and says it depends on what she did her manufacturing job so your honor the short answer to your question is do i did they testify that their opinions could have changed explicit that she was terminated and couldn't work because her employer wouldn't accommodate her injuries so this isn't a situation where she says i can't working any capacity she explicitly states on her applications that she can't work because her inquirer refuses the comedy her disability so this is this is on why it's the decision from this court where they there was this  big us claim from the claimant in their own to their wrists a plan that they could not work whatsoever and there was no explanation to reconcile their claim to their to their bene in their benefits application with their response a summary judgment seventeen it's a headline that our argument here was this is not a severinsen case because the only reason she keeps asking for we is because innovation doesn't engage in the interactive process and comedy or any other sort of request for people who are injured outside the workplace for the war your honor my client argued quote because innovation would not accommodate mcallister's lifting restrictions or modify the machine operator activities mccallister was forced to choose to pursue the only accommodation available to her dash a leave of absence theory quote your author this argument was fully briefed to the district innovation ventures this case in its simplest terms is upon an individual who is in a unfortunate accident and according to the information provided to innovation ventures from her medical providers was a to work in any capacity for an extended period of time throughout this case the plaintiff has attempted to reframe her arguments and she continues to do so here to avoid summary judgment favor of innovation ventures district court correctly found that these efforts were on availing and we respectfully request that this court affirm the findings i plan to address three topics today one of which gets to your points judge ruled in or the district court correctly held that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual with a disability d as a separate reason for summary judgment that the district court correctly held that the representations plaintiffs and her medical providers made for the purpose of obtaining disability benefits prevent her from now claiming she was able to work and then finally the plaintiff waived several of her arguments including her newest claim in the appellate reefing that she was able to work for just over a month period during her extended leave none of plato's arguments change the undisputed fact that her medical providers did not release her to perform any work whatsoever for well over six months and disability under the americans with disabilities act to be qualified she has to be able to engage in the essential functions of her role and as severson pointed out attending work is an essential function of the role being able to work particularly when your machine operator was was your has ever innovation refuse to discuss possible accommodations when she was injured that left her with well your honor the record doesn't actually show that her refusal to or that innovations refusal to discuss accommodations should that be true which we disagree with but that that was a basis or that would have changed her medical doctors opinions in fact we discuss that issue with april christlieb the physician's assistant that that mister lehman referred to earlier and we asked her if you had had a conversation with with your patient about innovation not providing accommodations would that have would you have documented it she said yes i would have documented would have been in my medical records so in you know the natural chain of events was that as as the plaintiff alleges she didn't discuss her job requirements with her doctors and then she didn't discuss the restrictions that could be provided or innovations failure allegedly to provide accommodations and so her doctor's only conclusion or the the natural conclusion from that chain of events that are doctors thought she was unable to work at all and that's supported by doctor cash statements that she wasn't even able to do an office job now mister lehman stated in plain and stated that she was only only had lifting restrictions that's not accurate close both physical and cognitive issues it includes things like dizziness it includes pain in her hips it includes a variety of different issues and while plaintiff would have you focus on th one small statement in that letter about judah rees lifting restrictions and other activities which is really the key phrase it wasn't simply her lifting restrictions that her doctors said caused her to be unable to work it was this long list of issues that she had unfortunately from this car accident and that continued for an extended period of time so much so that she wasn't able to return to work after a six month extended leave her doctors said again in october that she was unable to do any kind of work whatsoever their doctors reiterated that november she was unable to do any kind of work until she fulfilled this neurological examination that was needed and then our expert who was a doctor that was performing that neurological examination stated that she she wouldn't be able to return to work until maybe around june of two thousand and seventeen which would create it which would have created a one year leave if not more and that's the exact kind of leave that severson said was not a reasonable accommodation under the age a now plan of his care tries doctor ca testimony what we would submit is a bit inaccurately he testified that she could not perform an office job with her limitations and could not perform a manufacturing job with her limitations now on cross examination when there was a line of questioning regarding what doctor cashman considers when he looks at returning somebody to work yes he did state that he considers the job requirements he considers whether or not employers can can accommodate them but there's no connection between the plaintiff's condition and those statements it is simply what he would normally consider and having considered her as a whole and all her limitations he told innovation and miss christly told innovation she was an able to return to work at all and so that's what innovation relied upon according to this court in stern and other cases that is what the defendant is allowed to rely upon were allowed free live paan information from her medical providers not statements of her own where she says she can return to work not statements of her coworkers sisters friends boyfriend it really is her medical providers that can provide the information to innovation related she returned work so anything other than a leave of absence because of the information they were getting from her doctor she was she was told or innovation was told she could not return to work they never got to the point where there was something to discuss other than that and there's no obligation for an employer to wait indefinitely until such opportunity arises now plaintiff claims that also that her statements in her disability paperwork are not contradictory to her claims that she was able to work we submit that that's inaccurate this court in cleveland did not create this broad exception that says that you know as long as  long as there's a possibility possibly that you could return to work it's ok to do both what cleveland established was this this possible claim that these social security records are not contradictory and so if you take a close look at those records at both her long term disability and her social security disability applications you're going to see not only did she say directly i cannot work but she also listed a long a long list of issues she had and it's so unfortunate but she couldn't do so many of her own daily activities and if you take that as a whole she represented to the disability carry she could not thank you my client after she had completed her surgery call innovation and spoke to them about what would be required for her to really to return to work and whether restrictions could be lifted she was told that she can't come back to work if she has any restrictions and she specifically testified that she spoke about lifting restrictions and in particular with innovation she then follows up with a meeting with her doctor in this case the physicians assistant christly who the says that she will not allow my client to return to work due to lifting restrictions your honor our position is quite simply the innovations refusal to accommodate americans scuse me the refusal to engage in the interactive process is what this were up to in obstructed in the way the interactive process because my client to have any further discussions with her doctors about what accommodations were be necessary for her to issue is is a but for that conversation could she have come back we have evidence that she's going to come back is that with allegations three machine operator job and then furthermore she could have come back to work at the assembly job and it's important to discuss what the assembly job is these are about two ounce bottle plastic bottles of energy drinks that you put into boxes and you're package them up that to the extent that innovation is never try to construe this job as something more onerous more complicated