summary judgment on plaintiff's false claims and you're still full of his claims retaliation wrongful termination claim the district called held that plaintiff was terminated not because of the statements that he made to the consultants during the mock inspection that he would report defendants to the state for medicare fraud but because of his overall proof for performance the district court committed a reversible error when he did not accept the plaintiff's version of events failed the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and a failed to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor him it is he raised enough by his own statement to get to a jury that is correct your honor during inspection but there were many more statements of people who were also at these meetings who didn't support what he said so that it's more people vs one people but one person but still nothing contradictory statement except all the other people write well the argument that the plaintiff may have a properly rely upon his testimony to deviate some or judgment where his testimony is not contradictory or that history and physicals did not need to federal guidelines for medicare failure to complete the proper age these was the medicare violation and she also stated testified that she might have said to miss a will which is properly in violated medicare billing requirements it is also undisputed that dr parker was concerned about those issues so the only thing that is in the dispute is whether doctors plots for said i will report you to the state for days the chief had nurse for kids day so these were the people who participated in the meeting the very next day there was a summation meeting and it's undisputed that during this meeting miss hi person who she couldn't remember his name but she said there's one person here that i have real problems with and it wasn't the agent p that he she was talking about right well the deployment is that when she was talking about agent piece she identified  main issue which is necessary to maintain the medi care funding but she said one of the things you have to make sure about is that the histories are more extensive here and that there aren't sensor appropriate she said that wasn't a major problem that i have identified but she said the plaster had about four or five different problems that she observed when lena's taken care of medications joking with patients being inappropriate with patients not as the alarms were turned off during during procedures that's what she talked a freelancer about without him right well sure least that's what she said or the whole meeting took about ten minutes and dr friedlander said that basically miss hyde said to him you have a major problem and she understood it to she said it's that with this guy we've had a lot of complaints one of the other your ologist will not practice with him will not do procedures with him he's been on probation we've had all these complaints and now this review person is coming in and telling me about three or four things that she's observed that he's doing wrong that are dangerous well the defendants i say that this is the last drug the plaintiff's position is that the plaintiff is being terminated because he said will i will report you to the state so that is the reason he's being terminated because he to the consultants it's a reasonable inference that she was referring to those statements but wasn't here asked that his deposition whether he said to freelander you're firing me because i'm going to go to medicare in tow about this fraud that's occurring here  because you're worried i'm going to go tell medicare about these problems with the histories and the concerns that he said that he did not he said i did not set it right he did not he understood the comment from dr plaid skirt there was that that what disputed testimony but the but it's up to a jury to decide credibility that is correct and in this case the district court basically discredited dr plotz first test of what should be drawn in favor of the no may please the court thomas militia on the half of defendant a police for some of the cases that plaintiff has cited in which there was an exclusion as in yang of the plaintiff's testimony yeah judge daniels considered dr plasters testimony he did not exclude dr plasters testimony decided that it wasn't credible no your honor what he did was he looked at it in light of all the other evidence that was presented well the the rule on s judgment your honor is not that the plaintiff's testimony on its own own able as a plaintiff to get past summary judgment that the court has acknowledged the why not we tore all differences in favor of the not movement in this case it and he said this is my story why doesn't that get to the jury this court itself your honor has itself acknowledged in both and has acknowledge just one moment your honor augusta and based on the scott fi harrison the sun and the supreme court that when opposing parties tell different stories one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record so that no reasonable and other witnesses isn't that a classic case of judging credibility that goes to what you know your honor because i say yes in the first instance your honor judge daniels below did credit dr pot testimony but he also considered the other testimony and the other evidence that was provided if i may many of the cases under cited by plaintiff discussed circumstances where there's a he said she said dispute in which there are no third party witnesses what we have here is what's and there were two nonparty witnesses there was carroll hyatt who is an independent contractor for the consulting company that was hired by cap space and then there was dr midge and another consultant who was  of you have to nonparty witnesses we had two third party witnesses those witnesses your honor stated definitively that the statement in the one statement that dr plaster relies on did not happen but more importantly your honor in terms of reading into inferences and frances must be reasonable and there's something to distinguish between evidence that allows for reasonable inference and evidence that gives rise to speculation and conjecture here what pla restate there's a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for his termination temporal proximity is not enough to get to show pretext moreover your honor the temporal proximity here is to the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for doctor he had a long consistent history of complaints from patients including probation including matters such as lack of claims in this cleanliness and in talking it's also clear on the record that this continued throughout his time a kid spa and he only maintained his time there at the good graces of dr friedlander and against the cause of others with in cap space the record is also clear your honor that the issues that ms hyatt identified while with dr prosper in that procedure included lack clans like cleanliness and incessant talking the very issues that have been placed on probation for and had been issues persistent throughout his time at cap space in terms of reasonable inference is your honor that the plaintiff asked this court in the court below to draw those inferences are not inferences those are his attempts to plug the holes in his incomplete testimony all doctor plots chris testified is that he made that single test that single statement in a single procedure he then proceeded to tell no one at kipp space including dr friese lander that he had made that statement and that is the extent of his testimony all the other inferences that plaintiff asked to draw are in fact just contradictions of the actual probative evidence that defendant submitted on summary judgment and that evidence includes two known nonparty witnesses and their deposition testimony which i may add your honor they were subpoenaed by plaintiffs in that case and they testified as third party not agents of of cap space in addition your honor we have the probation and memorandum his long history of complaints and documentary evidence to support the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that of once that of witnesses versus the credibility of dr perper isn't that the classic case of a material question or for at for again your honor i do not believe when there's an entire contradiction based upon only the testimony of the plaintiffs all that's required by i don't put i don't believe that's the case your honor in that case there would just be a run to jury trial is your honor based upon the natha david of a plaintive cry buried in his own story the court on summary judgment is not part of the job of the court on summary judgment is to assess the evidence that is not a one to one comparison to weighing the evidence or assessing credibility they must assess the evidence and the important distinction here your honor even if we were to accept your honor your position as true that would only be relevant as to the first element of the claim there is no evidence including from dr plots not enough on its own to show pretext when there was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the terminations there has to be more and there is nothing more your honor as all the evidence indicates that he was fired due to his long history of problems that then culminated because they had a nonparty consultant come in and say that dr plots and the thousands of procedures that she had seen was one of the worst physicians she had ever witnessed moreover the criticisms and among the criticisms of dr plaster were the very same issues that he had been placed on probation for and that had been the reason that others with interest bad called for his terminations the fact your hon the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for his terminations and the evidence demonstrates that and on the causal connection again your honor there is no evidence that dr friedlander had any awareness of the statement  allegedly made by dr plaster including your honor by the fact that dr plaster himself admitted that he did not tell dr friedlander that he had claimed that he was going to report his spade to the states that the board the board had heard didn't you say we just heard that the board had the board heard that there was an issue with him in the procedure of course there was your honor it was thought it was miss high it's a valuation of dr potter and again your honor that that is a fact that is disputed but also not relevant or a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment because there is no dispute that the assessment of miss h even crediting that testimony plaintiff still cannot meet the other two elements of his claim most importantly that dr freelander even knew about the statement at the time that he made he slowly made the decision to terminate and thank you for your time on first with respect to the case that the defenses are relying on it in august that the language in that case come from the case in scott of the high risk from the u s supreme court case in that case there was a videotape that we courted the whole incident of what happened and even though the court observed that normally it's the plaintiffs version of events that has to be taken in that case there was a videotape the version of events was so oddly this discredited by the record of the videotape that no reasonable jury could be built clearly of that and what keeps days arguing here that we have a similar case here that every witness who was at this meeting  disagrees that dr scott said anything about reporting the institution to medicare on the basis of fraud and isn't that this is not a cumulative when you get enough  him for medicare fraud and that the for doctor friedlander told him during the terminations meeting that there was that he's firing him because of the comments that's not only sufficient to support his claim but also for him to prevent prevail the trial dr friedland denies that he said that but once again once again this is the question for the jury who many believe we have a we have two people in the room so going to the hypothetical and plainly summary judgment cannot be granted to to the public to the defendant now let's say we have a partner in the same setting in a room but now we have an architect and her summer drudgery and because the paralegals testimony is self serving contradicted and unsupported and that clearly cannot be the case we have just contradict their statements which require a jury to decide who is right if you have a number of questions arise from every decision