i know what it says it says that the plaintiff must offer a sufficient explanation to resolve the contradiction i have to admit i am thoroughly confused as to what exactly a plaintiff has to do to meet that standard based on what you think painting my interpretation judge is you've got to speak up and explain that somehow and this is once again just my interpretation i don't think it should involve a case within  that indicates that this is an explanation that could perhaps go for a jury and they can decide whether it works or not the first statement she says this is quoting from cleveland remain in a form which does not consider the effect that reasonable workplace always true statement that the s s d i application does not have a question about reasonable accommodation and the supreme court could have come up with a flat  that's what my client said but my client said the statement was true at the time i made it meaning on september nineteenth i'm disabled that's what the plaintiffs pick so my claim at the cleveland standard judge smith and judge said no and they don't time the claim of disability is made to the employer but neither of those resolved and in person a role that nonetheless despite those two point arguments you're going to have to address that in addition to the s s d i statement her deposition testimony says that she was just an able to work anywhere on the last day of her employment i application acceptance finds and that both of those go along the way toward resolving the potential ambiguity  your honor here's here's where i don't understand on the one hand we have three doctors workers we have a client who a plain tiffany do you claim to who hired a lawyer to get her job back we have someone who is desperately trying to get back to work and when all else fails so why couldn't a reasonable jury conclude that she was a qualified disabled person based on the evidence that i just pointed to because she said she couldn't continue running you look at her deposition testimony i mean it's  there but i'm looking to see if it's when you can give me an approximate date when you are no longer able to work at all when i was kicked out of that place i had to go see the psychiatry and that's when i started having panic attacks and he started g she's a she's involved in this interactive process she's trying to come back and she's saying to them that if you give me this accommodation i can do everything i can work and yet the  application she is saying that as of march eighth and going forward which includes this period where she's in the process she's saying i can't do anything right and that's i mean that's very much his language if she's she and her lawyer are actively engaged in and their active process and her lawyer has explicitly made to the company a of march eighth she could not work at all i heard that position i repeatedly asked her in many different ways and we had a translator there for her as well what was the last stage but she was unable to work and she repeatedly said m i got sicker and sicker and although when i left that job if they'd give me an accommodation i could have i could have done the job i could have performed the job in the way that i was that i could when i was a kid this is for example the middle of the pages page forty one of the brief when i was kicked out of that place i had to go see the psychotic person that's when i struck having panic attacks he started giving me a new medication increasing the dose he said to me you can no longer work because you are sleeping during the day another statement but the question is when you say you were kicked or are you referring to marjorie's when you were sent home your question yes from not putting on that's when i started getting worse every time the word would tell me the sugars and letters and they would call and it got worse i mean that that sounds a bit like the scenario that i was describing where the trauma of getting terminated from that job things keep plaintiff never changed her position it is not the kind of situation as measure pointed out when she said she couldn't do any work with she had an accommodation she could like in any label for sort of ongoing emotional issues so why is that so problematic for terms of the student i believe your to that that there's nothing in the record that  comes to a largely to the choice of a bad date i mean if she had chosen a date say outside of the piers after the terminations at the end of the so called interactive process if she had chosen a da one possible unintended consequences if this judgment gets affirmed this leads us all possibility of of malpractise actions against a lot of those assists guy attorneys who don't even know this issue exists