providing when they when a family member is unable to care for his or her own basic medical hygenic or nutritional needs or safety or is unable to transform himself or herself to the doctor etc and that's exactly what it was  well not during those particular days but i mean i would submit that it's not the province of the employer to micromanage what an employee does during a medical leave i mean we are going to look at what they do on each particular day if you look at the sca important case during that case the the father was out for one month he in fact went to work every day during that period of time the the sun provider did some chores and drugs that drove him to up the medical points four or five then and i'm wondering if we just interpret this in terms of you know green ingrates it's hard to figure out how going to get a car is caring for a family member who's ill there's often other people who are also there people take first providing care and he was taking a long period of time off are we to say that you know he should have waited until i'm not sure what they're saying with that he should have he should not that he should have waited and done something else during that period of time certainly he might not been the best decision i guess the question is you know does is this is that driving up to accomplish terminated him before he returned in fact he was supposed to get fifteen days from under the regulations so that has the fifteen days to return the sort of patient from the health care provider in the employer terminated him before the end of the fifteen day as i understand the structure of it he was given time off under the medical leave that's family leave act yes and that was to time off to care for his wife that's right when he risk or choice for a physician with all the same terms and conditions of employment the position is that by saying there are for ways we will reinstate you but we will put in this letter warning letter in your file which and we're going to take away your his wife or other family members of the house on his cell phone for approximately twenty seven minutes to get to use of doing that now for any total of twenty seven minutes in four days jealous was not home and rest in washington caring for his wife between july sixth in july ninth he did not take early emergency room when she needed to go there he did not take her to the hospital and was not with there with her at her side when she gave birth in fact she did not return to seattle until the day after she'd given birth and presented with these undisputed facts should surely credit ruled as a matter of law that mr cellist was not caring for his wife it they may have thought it was a mistake but in order to remain on this for trial on the grounds that the employee made a mistake i believe would be opening up the f m l n h to all sorts of law the statute and implementing regulations talk about caring for someone in a manner that requires physical presence and implementing regulation of twenty nine c f r eight to five point one  i think this court can establish a rule that would result modeling this case for future cases and that is because we're talking about the f m l a and a statute that allows employees to take time off from work to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse or another family member there should be at least some time period during that working in which charity is provided that's the whole reason to have time off from but they're dealing with a depressed relative and so they're literally on the phone five six hours that day during the workday with that qualifying here even though they were you really need to do is move them into office for me and you need to go to tacoma or portland so you spent five games down there trying to figure out which this ability to put the person  so they can be cared for more appropriately their home with that qualifies caring for the individual i would submit it wouldn't shock them that someone would have to use any different mechanisms for taking time off from work either file there is a record that you have in fact violated a workable it could have no effect whatsoever after that point if in the future there are other violations of work rules and the company is looking at think shows that this is that this is an issue that should be decided by a jury every case is going to present a little bit different situation and for example the they the issue that you just that that could be used if something else happened to him that was the subject of disciplinary action that that could be used to enhance that that further discipline it is going to have rather take from a nation