well the language that is as well the language in the note says impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities if the court wants to disassociate the term impairment from the underlying condition i think that presents a problem i mean a good example would be diabetes customers recognizes that diabetes is a condition that substantially impairs major life activity and customs routinely grants nairobi protocol treatment to things for the benefit of people with diabetes even things to do nothing to treat the symptoms for example the carrying cage for diabetes kit or a blood clue cause monitor so these things do nothing for the ship but they are designed for the use or for the benefit of people who are suffering from diabetes now somebody suffering from diabetes may have any sort of range of symptoms on a given that on one day their blood sugar may be normal close to normal but it's only normal because they're treating it because  person with a handicap like it's design yet it has been held to be specifically designed it could actually what bluecoats monitor could take the blood sugar level of somebody who doesn't have diabetes now in our case our products really are specially designed and the court recognizes that because our products are engineered products what they do is they apply pressure at the end of the greatest pressure graduating up toward the calf and the reason they do that is because the people they're designed for remember the lower court said this is specially designed for people suffering from t v and listen to him those people have a new conditions for diabetes at some point in the future and the product helps them prevent that risk now in that case it wouldn't be covered i wouldn't think something that was purely prophylactic would be covered your honor and isn't that essentially the findings though that were made here right not the courts that there was design for some somebody suffering from c b r but she found that if you were symptoms were low or if you were in the early stages of use then and actually she did not think that c constituted a physical handicap and that's simply incorrect she says i think it's pretty treaty even if she agrees all of these things she says that these are designed to specially designed to treat this condition they're specially designed they they squeeze your legs so their blood and lymph will move back away from your leg and away from gravity and she talks about the symptoms that suffered by people in the early stages their course of ends fired elix these impair your ability to move to walk off to stand for long periods of time people who have these conditions by the socks and usually socks specifically because without them they will suffer and that's the problem and what the court did here is first of all the court latched onto the symptomatic nature and again i will be protocol goods don't necessarily have to treat symptoms if i understand with a court of international trade sense that one these items are designed to treat mild to moderate conditions right what the law requires the court to do and that's a real big problem here the then i won't be protocol provision does not invite the court to play doctor and that's i think what happened here and i think it's very important conclusion that it's substantially limits one of the major like that if it is because if you have if you have the condition to the point that you need to apply compression to your legs that's the limit of your life orthopedic socks and i had to what were we going to draw the line between mildly handicapped and grossly had and that's a problem but we think the courts that the focus has to be on whether the product at issue especially does i mean remember you're not required to be written you're not required to be in deep pain you know you're not required to be immobilized in order for the same happen i mean examples we gave included for example  with magnetic closures for people who have arthritis or parkinson's disease and find that hard to suffer but to do it but the nairobi protocol does not invite the court to make a judgment about whether that person's and what i think is interesting in the lower court took a look at the cea piece which is a medical scale that measures the severity of the symptoms of the handicap and she said i'm divid of anything in the scale of zero to two not a headache let's not let the medical world list anything three above is a handicap and that's a problem because what you're inviting the courts to do here and they've never done it before this  describes from a jima up to ulcers that's not what these products are designed these products are as we've discussed our design for at most purpose brains but they're also marketed and intended for use as a prophylactic is for pregnant women if you're travelling long distance about i don't know anything about the technology but what about if the east this host of ratings designed to aid people at the early stages so that they wouldn't progress to the later stages there's nothing in the record suggest that this disease is necessarily progressive you may just have varicose veins your entire life and that's it there's no but if you treat them anywhere this host me at the early stages new prevent starts swelling and all of that stuff wouldn't that necessarily help the too just a different product line the cigars as which is a sports line you know you see athletes wearing these sleeves and these compression garments on their legs so they can perform better during events absent those products there are not handicaps and they're the same particularly suffering from anything just people who want their legs to be less tired at the end of completely completely agree with you on that so what do we do with that actual thing i think i don't think it's factual finding i think it's a it's a legal finding because especially  designed for physically handicapped persons and that's a finding that the court that is a decision that the court didn't make because it said the lower level c v d which these goods are designed for is not is specially designed decision i think you have to look at the specific condition if any that the goods are zein for so let's look at the specific condition and we don't look at the most severe symptoms of that condition and we don't look at anything beyond the ambit of what those goods are designed for there's an controversial proof in the record that cigars they make these goods to appeal to a general population there are over the counter goods you don't need a prescription you don't have to be under a doctor's care there's no contra indication if you were to just go to c v s or whatever and buy one of these things and put these on because there is such a low level of compression if you have  an open ulcer well then you would most likely be under doctor's care would be a prescription days would be a custom product not an over the counter products and that product would have contradict cations because at higher levels of compression there could be problems with our record in the cage that there may be especially on circular knitting machines which maybe make one sock every twenty minutes you can go to the store and expect to pay anywhere from fifty to seventy dollars for a pair of th by these things may be used to standing walking for long periods of time but if you shop for food c v d you're going to have a hard time doing that if you have a job in a retail store or as a policeman you're not going to be able to do it these things will never cure your disease they will help you get by with them and that's all it's about our it's a good about the point that the government made here and which is that the court especially when it was between this hosiery and the compression please the court said you have to look to marketing and whether or not their air will stand offish scripts and whether or not they're specially designed whether or not they have of people with physical handicap it has a broad expansion of a physical handicap you know the fact that somebody's not handicapped might use it is a wrong it's designed for use by the handicapped if i have no style bts you know  problems i can buy a blood glucose monitor and monitor my what every day what i think is very important is that when you take a look at how the core treated the are compression sleeves it did nothing to look into the severity of the handicap you know how bad is the swelling on a particular that a woman who's had a mastectomy and lost some of her glands may have shiria swelling on a given day not showing on another day and what the court said is you know these things are sometimes used by people suffering that and i think in closing your eyes i think the important thing as with this is a legal definition and it is a broad definition there is a rule of liberality associated with  congress made clear that this was should be given a more liberal interpretation and even the nairobi protocol itself we do not want to have a situation where the court comes in and makes a medical judgment and when the medical doctors say here's a scale of symptoms of people suffering a recognized permanent belittling disease the court comes in and says well to this point in the scale it's not a disease it's only a point of a scale it's only disease or handicap a