approximately seven weeks or in the court's phraseology short term and therefore his underlying impairment or depression was short term and therefore he wasn't disabled however the record  who was were no no the major life activity alleged in the complaint and argued in the briefing does not include work for the defendant's insurance carrier that provided short term disability benefits analyzed whether the individual plaintiff was unable to work in determining whether he was entitled to short term disability benefits but this is an eighty eight case not an insurance benefits case under the eighty eight the issue is whether his impairment to depression substantially limits him in one or more major life activities supplemental materials to the court the major life activities included sleep inability to interact with others thinking and concentrating  enable to sleep at times two through suppression up days at a time or in the alternative sleeping hours all day to the exclusion of other activity his inability to interact with others was of that leave to determine the impairment itself was short term but that's wrong analysis the leave is a request for a short term reasonable accommodation the underlying impairment depression in the record before the court is that he had suffered from it for years he was diagnosed with it in november of two thousand  experienced a seven week to two month period he was under able to work was diagnosed by a different doctor one year later in november of two thousand and two where once again there was a one month period only in that case the employer accommodated that leave and he was able to successfully return to work he continued in this record he continued to experience and suffer from the depression as of march  thousand and three when mr deposition was taken and as of november two thousand and three when the summary judgment materials or submitted and at that point he was still presently suffering from depression so on the record before the court it is a minimum of a two year impairment but again it is through that then present so i would argue it's a long term or permanent it is not a seven week impairment if the depression case that we cite in the materials is is very close to being right on point the depression in that case had lasted for a period of seven years of sanctifying that case for the first time i needed time off work the fact that the plaintiff only needed a few weeks off work in that case for weeks but was terminated after being off two weeks was not held to mean that the underlying depression didn't exist that he wasn't just able to do that depression due to the weight effect it is sleep in that case was of her sleep interaction with others or caring for themselves the court needs to separate the re diagnosed with severe depression severe depression is a diagnosis and that's what the defendant is told severe depression when he asked what exactly are we dealing with mr allison i've sort of switching to the request for reasonable accommodation analysis when mr allison the defendant supervisor asks mr peterson plaintiff's representative who is acting on his behalf because he's incapable of  communicating himself communication being a major life activity he's having other people take care of his affairs for him because he's so incapacitated in that first interaction when mr allison asks what exactly are we dealing with he's told explicitly a severe situation involving severe depression and that mr brown needed no one had help and was seeking help that was putting the defendant on notice of the medical condition depression and asking for a modification leave her time off work which is exactly what this course is stated in absolutely he she does part under very rare this course is stated that you identify the medical condition and you ask for a modification and that triggers the obligation by the right which was later confirmed by doctors no depression time off needed for depression diagnosis depression diagnosis in november twentieth diagnosis december kaiser operates his counseling should not be held against my plaintiff the fact that he saw a nurse practitioner doesn't negate the notice to the defendant that he needed additional time off as certified by that nurse practitioner authorized his return to work that is leave was not necessary after december tenth that is based on core the insurance carriers log of a conversation between its contractor dr hartmann and  business record there is a conflicting business record and that is not tremendous and own record of that conversation that took place on november nineteenth and in that record in that statement which is says that he has extended playing to some time off to december tenth and noted that dr hartmann well proceed dr hartmann indicated if you will process doctor says he can return to work december tenth and no one no morning he's released to return to work no morning for at least the record is that he expensive through the chance recognizing it may be later or thereabouts and subsequently the nurse practitioner another health care professional treating my client which may be disregarded by core insurance provider because under  client's treating medical professional those he needed an extension of leave from december tenth all the way through to december twenty third thirteen more days and instead he was terminated december twentieth because this defendant stated that core had determined his short term disability benefits were no longer continued those are apples and oranges cours not in the record cor did not make eighty eight determinations in the record that was done by a separate agency horizon and this case was never referred to it defendant had notice of the severe depression were requests for an accommodation of excess leave the increment lasted for years after the need for that short term accommodation and the defendant failed to engage in the interactive process simply state my client to go for just spite mr peterson's repeated in the record hounding of ken potts that he needed something more than short term disability you may need a little more time something like a leave of absence i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal if i ma transactions during that period making horizon skeptical whether indeed he was making more calls as he claimed to be on the twenty ninth and plaintiff himself conceded below this was the first time there was any indication of a possible health problem the only other communication from the plaintiff is a letter which comes to arising on november five letter signed by brown and the letter said as the reports i thank you for being understanding during this difficult time and then the letter peterson then writes a letter of potts to some seattle h r of the company in seattle and then that letter in his own capitalized old letters peterson writes that he was extremely clear in communicating to core of information given to horizon was not enough to alert now that what they had here might potentially be and eighty eight disability what they believe this was was a short term incapacity everything sent to them confirmed they didn't know approved him going back to work exactly what's needed to trigger the obligation to gauging the interactive process and pad for rising in the interactive process rather than farming it off to its short term disability insurance carrier it would have been able to have to obtain and get the information that it now asserts it never had the whole purpose of the interactive ok what it is is that that it isn't you it is it's severe depression that's what he's told that severe is from peterson and it's repeated this severe three times by peterson to allison that is confirmed by medical documentation which the employer has a right to receive but chose to ignore the fact that mental blat on november twentieth may or may not have authorized his return work our position is he merely extended his time off work through that period and recognize corps were treated as through that period or thereabouts so there is a fundamental question of fact for the jury to decide what mental blatt did or did not confirm at that time but whether or not mendel black did that as to the situation arising did know is that as of december there was additional new medical documentation stating that plaintiff needed time off not through the tenth of december but continued on through the twenty third of december and it wasn't due to just depression it's now due to depression and anxiety that's what they knew and it's their obligation under barnett the language is an employe eleven twelve and employee requesting a reasonable commendation should inform the employer of the need for an adjustment due to a medical condition using plain english and need not mention the a phrase three small combination that's this court's precedent that's exactly what point did through mr peterson and his doctors by informing arising of a severe depression that required  a short term leave of absence interesting the oral argument defendant now refers to apparently conceding that mr peterson referred to a short term situation throughout its briefing it referred to mr preachers and asserting it was a short term condition that is the issue it wasn't a short term condition depression the record establishes that's at least two years through the present for the record that's permanent the record is right it doesn't but it doesn't get off the hook by saying we never asked we never investigated at the time  ration to be a disability and well that's where that's where the part of the interactive process would have determined if right since position is you don't get this leave you're not just abled your depression isn't severe enough or long term enough you've only been suffering it from two months then they could then he would have had the opportunity to present documentation arise and has a right to request but they never engaged in the interactive that he only needs to fire medical condition two and request in a car modification which he did in this case to trigger the interactive process my position with being the case where there was