leave and all the other leave that was used for purposes of the excessive absences it was approved and then it was used later rod to bring an action against him therefore no fall you had a certain write a please if i didn't raise it by the words i raised it by by the by the actions and what was once again being he's being penalized for something that had been approved earlier and now he's being sanction that he was he was that you cannot penalize someone subsequent post hoc after he has been given a brutally you allege fifty five to fifty seven that mr howe was retaliated against for opposing the your answers are doing you no good mr lee because you know perfectly well that if you didn't raise it below as it legal argument then it seems off right for us to hear if your hon of voice so you arguing a brief that that conditions were attached and now you're saying that there were no conditions then there were no conditions but if i'm not given specifics in terms of the fact that yes i can raise constitutional issues voice of vagueness many sense for me to go to the hearing because of some things i would raise they wouldn't pay any attention to that and that is correct that's what i understand that is correct or are let me tell you what i do a vibe in your shoes because i would have realized that the argument being made against me if i didn't go to the hearing i would have gone to the hearing and i was and i would be here and i'm going to raise five arguments you know i know you're going to reject them but i'm going to raise them because i'm going to preserve them for appeal because you know what when i lose i'm go review see what i mean i understand what you're saying iraq and i would say there was there was no procedure available to follow such a hair he would have to he would have to happen terminations vacated or your argument you couldn't have made constitutional arguments well maybe it shows that the hearing examiner doesn't have the authority to hear those arguments we will not know that until you frame the issue at a hearing some day get ruled on flatly and then see my point i mean i certainly see your point i have had it i'm not trying to tell you how you should argue on behalf of your client but it seems to me that when you say well i didn't want to go to one hearing because some argument i might have made would have been rejected life disability dispute well i'm not and actually were i mean he did the certainly hearing officer found the testament to be very believable he said they were contemporaries records that he made at the time it's understandable why he started making those records after  exercised an extraordinary mother patients i mean there they work with him they try to convince them of the necessity of coming into work and of calling into work and letting us know what's going on and really that when i feel that period of two years before they finally start taking some action so  i think there was if you look at this record and you look at why the hearing officer made the decisions made it's really hard to see how you could make any other decisions based on this record  a connection to the disability had he clearly made has made a good case for needing leave for those events i don't think he had been an issue with the only restriction was that if he was going to be gone for some type of illness related or not disability related and the other sixteen or whatever which were i m s related or related to his disability regarding sleeping which is one of the resulting disability eighty eight disability from the m s which was acknowledged and verified in three separate b h creations and twenty twelve now with regard to the further medical information that's asked for in twenty thirteen that eight expiring in twenty twelve with regard to the uptake that they want in february fifteenth which comes within that long period of time it was actually it was out of work it was all related to the m s with regard to  accepted but they were accepted the twenty thirteen hours that he was out that he was charged quote unquote a wall he provided medical documentation when he was capable of going back to the doctor he provided it se he was satisfactory he performed satisfactory but for the required to not necessarily deal with a neutral policy in terms of leave so to speak but to deal with but to deal with the specific disability and that's in forty two u s c but the factual record looks like they ben over backwards to accommodate him if it what we have in the record if i may interrupt you your honor they bend over backwards after their liability was over and twenty thirteen january one twenty thirteen what they had to do prior to that they did not have to do subsequent to that because he had no f m l a twenty thirteen there's absolutely no right and so they were not required quote unquote and less you look at him as being regarded as disabled thank you ok thank you very much