twenty years ago i was before this honorable court and argued the case of pittman versus barrett systems protection board now back twenty years later to argue that the same fundamental principle applies in the case now before the impaired in this case found and for suspension when the agency refused to allow the and clearly to return to work because he believes you cannot safely on the physical duties to the state that he provided to the supervisors that he had his doctor fax them now did they get there i don't know but if they've given us notice an opportunity to respond that they have done with the actually ended up doing what they out on january fourth the agency sent him a letter saying mr ryder what's wrong with you you need to come back to work so we had it except he'd already been there on the night of the second into the morning the third if you look at the respondents brief through the floor thirty five thirty seven thirty eight thirty nine three to forty three these are all statements that he got from his doctor to take him now what is he doing with the statements he's makes a judgment that i'm not i'm not able to go to war you are in a fundamentally different world than you are when the government comes and says mr binary go home you can't work here and that's exactly what happened to my  his number produced by he had a number of absences and and also the swine flu thing there might be a circumstance where it would be reasonable if someone was coughing i mean you know soon god forbid we're back in the fourteenth century and someone came in and they records and what you see is sitting home and said these records are not sufficient so you went out and got no records and came back that's why he repeatedly came back to work on january twenty third if there were resets he was doing everything printer it's a nexus fourteen which gives more jurisdiction there's a discrepancy about when to do this because technically he came back all stuck with six and i believe he started working again and they sent him home so we actually punched the clock my position would be from jan met a lot of cases and actually i think it's it's instructive the great the thomas case which preceded it because it discusses really the entire growth and development of this area constructed suspensions and when the civil service commission when it had the indicates that just a plain statement from a doctor say you can go back to work is not enough it has to include a certification that employee can return to work without hazard to themself or others and it can perform essential functions of disposition and we would contend that override the private doctor that mr maher would would present no risk to himself or others were clearly even the agency's regulation indicates that if they do not accept the medical certification fourteen of the interviews record especially mr horowitz aren't at any time in agencies since requires return to duty medical service occasion so long as the employee takes longer than fourteen days to submit the return to  place and of course there's no evidence of that the to twelve which you can see is medical leave to cover some of those absences where he was told to go get it so we covered himself judge one other thing that i would like to just say is if you look at the regulations where we started this war it was with your question is  it doesn't say they say there's a policy that requires him to provide less that's not what this regulation or this policy says it says return to work when it's maybe required if you're going representative it's required if you're the girlfriend of the supervisor it's not required and when you get to situations like that that happen every day the workforce then that's when you have to have noticed an opportunity to respond you have to have you seventy five thirteen right give it to me in writing on the spot my client never been out of work