so well here hamilton versus westchester county shower as he tried to see his family navigate the prison and engage in a limited outdoor recreation available to him for example mr hamilton's complaint explains how he had to rely on his crutches in the shower making washing him self and practical all because the shower had no or aliens no bench no math and no support whatsoever for someone who could not stand on their own two feet to even get into and out of the shower plaintiff had to scale it two dollars foot step all w told that the jail was sick of crybabies he was sworn at and that also because he was in jail he should get over his grievances what does the complaint say about requesting  grievance and then he had two other grievances filed as well but your honor the nd part of your question was well would it have mattered in this or at least in the title three contacts  injury that is known to the relevant covered entity the you know the plaintiff doesn't have to make an expressed request for disability share it's just very clear that mr hamilton's injuries are obvious the jail gave him and more than that they you know tried to push him up the stairs at one point how i mean the words the jail gave him credit is maybe the jail thought that was sufficient and then how would they know that they had to do something about that two and a half which  or you know put in a rare i mean did he if you never asked for rare you know when would they just go ahead and do that on their own a shortish and so is so in fact of taking the complaint in the light accommodation they provided were were reasonable in fact so they have not challenge to the fact that a bench or rail or even a mat in the shower would have been a reasonable accommodation let me ask i understood the concern on appeal to be that the claims were dismissed against the county because of the temporality of the disability and the argument is that that's wrong after the  regulations correct that's correct you're right with respect to whether or not but he claims the pleading state a claim what what did the district court do with respect to that was  it to the district court for it to decide whether or not the pleadings were satisfactory the district court has an ability we don't have which is to allow the plaintiffs to amend if there are any  including weighing all of the relevant factors upon the rule of construction that requires that a disability be construed broadly so even if the score were going to suggest that something that temporarily temporarily the was a factor at  all it would have aided the district courts of the circuit if this court can issue a published opinion opinion addressing how do how to navigate the definition of disability and specifically to articulate of course that all that matters is whether the disability poses a substantial mentation on a major like activit i mean what if there's a have substantial limitation for one day a day a reasonable accommodation met look very different than if they're unable to walk for a period of weeks or a longer amount of time and of course that's what congress intended in the in the amending the idiot congress specifically said that the question of disability should not demand extensive analysis let me ask you at the time your client filed he had been disabled for nineteen days and your argument to us is that's not when and how how long when this all plays out how long was he disabled so your honor you know we can only introduce what's in the record and i understand that you can't rely on it we can't rely on it but just out of curiosity how long was he disabled i can't speak to the duration of it is this a specific disability and i'm not isn't it important to you and to your client i mean what are we talking about somebody who was disabled for six months a year or was it for him not because again as we look as we look do you want us to rule that he has satisfactorily pleaded that he a failure to accommodate what you've just acknowledged that the length of the of the disability could affect what's a reasonable accommodation but the defendants have been having challenge that the and that was there or the question of how much it was rise to an actual violation in this case is something that is highly fact but on and which is rather difficult for us to duration does not matter for the purposes of determining disability if it matters at all it goes to the reasonableness and we can see that through lots of different textual sources in the statute including the fact that already going to we understand your legal point but you know we're interested in things sample that he have surgery i mean if you know whether how you know how long to the scum on any could be relevant to whether we even though it's not technically  record it's the kind of thing that realistically could have an impact on whether we send them back how we send them back that kind of thing but now that you have three minutes for a bottle let's hear from your colleagues on the other side another are not there and were twenty six so isn't that just youngster and then whatever happens after any number of things possible possible amendments but why get us beyond what is a fairly obvious situation approach the six well your honor the threshold question in the pleading is whether or not he has played i don't think we can say as a matter of law that this is minor i mean i understand it was not going to be life long but he has pleaded that he couldn't have access to showers without pain i understand that there might be a different type of argument with respect to how much recreation you have to provide to someone who's temporarily disabled i understand with respect to the visitation that you might have an argument that there was no grievance he never asked for a chair for instance but at the pleading stage don't we have enough here viewed in the light most favorable for the plaintiffs which we must do to think someone who is disabled in taking a shower with pay is even if you have noticed that it all that you you don't have to do anything until the six month point is reached it can depend so for example know series of cases that say somebody who's had knee surgery and who's had knee injuries and surgeries that have you know incapacitated for several months have not met their threshold of showing that they're injured under  a to require us to go through discovery simply to come to the same conclusion you know six months or year from now is ultimately becomes a waste of resources in a pain with a visit and you don't think that those allegations are enough to state a plausible claim on a twelve b six motion not in such a short timeframe now but what does that mean your short time frame is nineteen days because that's he filed the complaint within one thousand dollars days but isn't it a reasonable inference that this will go on longer than nineteen days is a reasonable inference that will go on longer but it's there's do you know by the way what happened to him   he wind up having surgery or how long those last i know it's not in the record but i'm curious whether you know i am not however i do know that because in four months he was no longer in russia's tranny jail and that is in  i'm the only recent put in to the motion to dismiss was his change of address when he moved to another facility so we are talking at most approximately a four month period from the date of injured but that doesn't kill whoever he was injury which characteristically is likely to be temporary and really no good just that you says that the fact that the new injury is temporary is not determinative that's all we know now that is true however again even in the end in the interpretive guidance in the case law the severity of the in the time and verity are both factors in determining whether or not it is a qualifying injury under the age it is not that the regulations say that for a person we all regard it as disability claim and it needs to be more than six months in essence doesn't that imply that for an actual disability claim can be less than six months it can be but it can get even the guidance for example that the u c has put out interpret ing since this specifically says that impairment did last only for short period i'm typically not covered although they may be if they're sufficiently severe so it is a bounce in the short of the duration then more severe needs to be and you have for example in the department of justice regulations interpreting the house you have the fact that if somebody is has mobility impairment that requires them to be in a wheelchair that satisfy period so if it's less than that obviously you have more how it must be a longer lasting eighty three claims for deliberate indifference and under more now but appears to have abandon those claims on appeal they weren't addressed in any of the briefing or oral arguments today so i don't think there's any dispute about that if the court has any questions i'll be glad to take them otherwise i'll rely in my expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting so it's not a requirement that injury be bad sixty seven months the express regulation typically a short injury may not be may not qualify sufficiently severe but sufficiently severe doesn't imply higher standard of severity then the standard laid out by the statute the statute really says that has to substantially limit majorly activity that is the standard of severity that is contemplated by the way and the reason that's important is because congress was concerned that explicitly so that it wanted to focus on whether the accommodations were reasonable whatever whatever with is appropriate for a given disability and so he honors i think that's very important context when considering how to apply the standard because again the standard does not change based on the length all that matters is whether there is a substantial mentation chimichurri life back to body and and that's an area that i think the  should correct and should help to instruct the dish reports on the proper interpretation of the statute as it's very obvious that lots of courts struggled with this and and i would like to also address the francis decision on which the defendant or elias that decision as i think recognized by your honour's was that summary judgment but importantly that decision didn't engage with the text it didn't address the rule of instruction that was expressly added to the idiot congress in order to avoid situations where like him like plaintiff hamilton were denied their claims under the eighty under an improper definition or disability thank you thank you thanks to all of you the court will luggers your decision