the final case this morning or this afternoon which is immediately his supervisor mr juices by text message and he also much of the medical clinic on the premises right there there was nobody working at three am they told him to come back later he continues he goes and sees his own dr howard tells him that he needs surgery that he should be on like duty and that he cannot lift anything over five pounds all the activists conveyed for motor company immediately ford motor company interesting way would say a few drive a forklift and i would point out just the obvious here which is why would he have to change the restrictions if there was no change in his condition and he knew because he knew how my client had got me injury but he was driving a forklift exchange in late june you know if the plaintiff's doctor wanted to make it clear that he would he thought he should be off due to you from driving a forklift it seems like there was plenty of opportunity to get that information in front of ford before he was fired well i'd say a few things about that first of all ford when he came back with this note to forbes said listen this is my doctor said and i need brought that note in saying hey i can only have five lb lifting authority three days after that she overruled that was struction and she told him based upon the fact that she has an internal medicine doctor who has no expertise in orth c surgery as opposed to dr heller who does and who was the plant doctor on the premises making three or four hundred thousand dollars a year being paid by ford to treat people when you're on the promise that basically she was overruling restriction there's no reason to overrule it if if if the restriction itself doesn't restrict anything and that's the position that ford is taking and you know i would also note here you know that girl who is testified that who regularly if she was confused about what a restriction meant she would call the doctor that he should particularly because this is a doctor that's usually a restriction not in her expertise yet she made a choice you're not to do that and if you look at the history here when when my client first came in right after this happened and talked to them about what happened they never said well we're concerned about whether the restrictions that your doctor has issues brought and what did what did that miss miss and i each other in what is their defense that there are certain right there there are just asserting that the incident never happened there are asserting that his injury to his other wrist that he had surgery on it earlier time somehow should be relevant to this injury which is ridiculous they're saying that he didn't report the incident he reported the incident only six five or six weeks after he was hired so therefore he would be precluded from even seeking workman's compensation benefits which they even admitted at the depositions represented disagreed with dr heller recommendations surgery i mean they were basically uncertainty their medical judgment in place of my client's doctor's medical judgment and that's not right and i don't know if there's i mean one of the and right now he has no health insurance that still is being litigated the workman's comp case ation case is still out there he's expressed repeatedly that he wishes to have the surgery and hopefully soon will have he certainly still needs that he had he had provided the restrictions he didn't say specifically he can drive a forklift the later expression intentions is not really very probative of what well but let me ask you if i could about the episode that i find most troubling here which is the conversation at the time of terminations were the plaintiff says that ms spites said that if he dropped his worker's compensation claim and change that to a personal injury that he would not be fired correct i was trying to see how that's presented to the district court and what i found in your your brief referred to paragraph thirty three and thirty four of your statement of additional facts and i don't see that there i don't have to dig into the brief i don't have it off the top of my head i mean it's it's in its eyes far as i knew it was correctly cited in our brief if it's not says june twenty four was the last day to baptise perform any work for her maybe i'm missing something here but no i think i think what happened was he came back ready and able to work which i thought they were correct when i came over write it candidly didn't check in because i had been raised in a lower court i do know the transcripts were part of the record below so there isn't a basis to find it but as you correctly point out it's not your job to take through the transcripts for that i'm afraid i'm always going on to say maybe you know ok wait a minute if short appendix to forty five into forty six minute to forty three so maybe it's a mess it's there i don't know how much will be able to sort it out  orthopedic surgeon instead they found it more advantageous just to have their internal medicine and plant doctor just over rule howlers restrictions and the reason shield ruled was because she saw that that they didn't allow him to drive a forklift if there would be no need to overrule him if she could have taken the position listen this says you can still drive a forklift so we're done go back to work they didn't do that she says she wrote her own report i overrule these restrictions m m m striking  therefore you have to go back to work well why did she strike them she struck them because they knew he couldn't drive a forklift and if there were any ambiguity from north or predict surgeon or his orthopedic surgeon she certainly could have called him up and ask him what his position was which you know may please the court paul hudson on behalf of ford motor company your honour's the plaintiff had to show in this case that for terminated him primarily in retaliation for filing a workers compensation complaint and not for any other reason is a very limited claim under illinois law and the question before the court here is not whether mr about this back in two thousand and twelve was physically able to operate a forklift or not or whether a five pound lifting and ripping limitation mean someone should drive a forklift or not those are issues for the workers compensation tribunals they're presently being litigated there if mr about this is entitle to his benefits then he'll recover there the woman he claimed before the court here is  decision to terminate him and that a supplemental appendix two thirteen he does not read read read but that that statement of fact and that's consistent with spites testimony her got his vision at fifty eight fifty nine disputed this sounds to me like about as direct evidence of retaliatory intent and causation as i can imagine she did she disputes that she made the sense i understand she disputes that summary judgment and he did put this in his statement of additional material facts and i didn't see the district court address and it's if we accept that she made the statement what she said was immaterial because it didn't make a difference either way he was going to have to submit a  doctor's note excusing say would be the difference here his testimony is that she said it would have made a difference right that's the testimony his testimony was that she made this statement and it's our position that that's immaterial whether that happened or not because she didn't rely on that in making the terminations decision that's i don't understand that argument if if you've got your decision maker say i won't fire you if you drop your workers compensation claim that sounds like the heart of this remedy in this cause of action under  but i think there will with the admission that that did not make a difference to her terminations passage and where do you get that i don't see where you get that admission particularly with the weight of the statement of additional material facts and that and the more broad difficulty that i have with the summary judgment in this case is that even accepting that what you call a dispositive admission that he was fired for  issues the attendance dispute was all bound up in the worker's compensation claim the reason why he wasn't in attendance is because he had a dispute about whether he had to be in tenant in attendance because of the conflict between the happened and in fact what dr lewis justified was that she agreed with the all limitations and she said i didn't disagree with the restrictions from dr heller and it is not that i don't think they were appropriate or not appropriate i didn't think they were necessary in order to do or complete the functions of his job that's supplemental panix to a nine paragraph twenty five we also have to program twenty two there dr lewis concluded that the essential functions about his forklift clear position did not implicate about his work restrictions and so that's why we don't have the inference like in the grubs in this clip at the clarke cases where is the employer is actually faced with a doctor's note that says this guy can't work and the employer looks at that instead as i don't care we're ordering them back to work anyway that gives rise to an inference under that line of cases that will be something of what it is question i asked is you don't think so i've found gripping the left and is involved in operating for that was her conclusion yes and so what we don't have is the factual predicate to get this inference of in light of a kind of mocking and i think it's completely fair from the record to infer that they did not believe mr baptise actually injured himself in the way he said he did the the problem for m is spite student those those communications were not with the decision maker they were not communicated to or she didn't rely on them in making the determination she and certainly seemed to rely on the actions of l but i think that's exact same situation as in the beatty decision where the decision maker made a determination decision based on absences and it turned out the the employee there actually it submitted a series of doctor's notes that should've excuses absence been exceedingly easy for him to cure rebuts any inference of retaliatory motive because if you freeze time when he was suspended for failing to show up for for a month and ford received this lifting and gripping limitation any reasonable employee in that situation would have gone to their doctor and said look there's very clearly that's clearly your best argument or not but i don't see how it responds at least for purposes of summary judgment to this testimony about will meet him he has a big leap to get through they fired me because i didn't show up to work from my job as a forklift operator for two months which is a permissible reason for so what else does he have he tries to rely on the scrubs in france faced on conflicting medical test testimony the conflicting medical opinions but ford was not actually faced with conflicting by the company on here is that he has to give up you know that the heart of his claim the heart of his factual claim in the worker's compensation case in order to maintain his employment in complying with the order to come back to work and we've got cases that say that that catch twenty that ford was faced with that conflicting medical opinion and we have undisputed in the record that ford did not take the letter that way and that dr lewis in fact read it as consistent with driving a forklift so we don't have that referred to emails and whatnot e mails that they didn't believe mr about this position but certainly it can't be the case that any time a plant doctor or a or person compensation administrator believes that a guy's not being truthful that that gives rise to some kind of inference that down the road four months later when he's terminated that the real reason is not because he didn't show up for two months but because he