preliminary threshold issue of what is the standard of review to be applied to the issues in this case  with respect to the duration of the disability because all of the medical reports until dr teachin unanimously say that this lady was disabled from performing the duties of firefighting that was a fourteen month period so as a matter of law under the definition of permanent disability on a to no basis she would be disabled for that twelve month period why start teaching issues of opinion which we do not agree that th there is some of us to support the decision it must be affirmed it's there has to be evidence which applying to the record taken as a whole the opposite conclusion is clearly doesn't your discrimination claim seems to be somewhat inconsistent with your venture no primarily because the district's position with the illinois department of human rights here is that all of the medical evidence review showed that she could not safely perform the duties of firefighting the place position before human rights before this court before the pension board is with our reasonable accommodation and i'm disabled if you would order process of addressing the position of the fire to her when you talk about her inability to carry out the job but you didn't talk about the reason for or the the differences between th proof issue and the issue that we are suppose to future theory which is whether or not she was disabled based upon some problem or injury the rose up in active duty oh because you never said anything about an active duty you never cited to the special languages contained in the statute you talk about whether natural is able to carry out the job you didn't say why she could have been won over by a force and she couldn't carry out the job so it's not just the fact that she can't carry out the job which is what you just said was the fired purpose because there's got to be a little bit of war so let's start all over again and tell me why your position or your client's position is  the ana the plaintiff suffers from latex allergy which has been under control as a result of chronic exposures to latex during the course of her record which is virtually the unanimous over that the only source of exposure for her over her career with this part per latex allergy became a faded worsened as a result of these work duty or the cumulative effects of exit duty the the job alone of operating an ambulance providing d m s care to patients going to hospital settings taking patients to the emergency room where she would be exposed to latex in my opinion is an active duty but cumulative effects of these acts of dubious cause feet a provision of her condition to the point that became by the admission of the on with reasonable accommodation if the district if the district would see order of the workers to stop using latex with change for gaskets on its equipment and remove the latex from the work at the immediate work environment that she in she and her doctors believe that she could do the job without the accommodation she couldn't do the job that is why was the point of trying to make to the core was her position to all of these agencies has been the same d expressly stated that based on the medical information available to them she is disabled from performing the duties of a fire fire and that is why we cannot accommodate her condition their statement of that in my you would change the caskets i would i would love to return to work my mind is currently working as a teacher but i guarantee if the district were to do with the course suggested she would resign their position and report to work monday and what if they did those things and she still and that would have been my preference i mean me the way this thing happened wasn't that my clients brought in a doctor slip asking for time off work my client made a passing camera to her lieutenant saying you know all of the latex that these that these other fellows are using is really making my condition worse i'm starting to have breathing symptoms could you talk about everyone using natural gloves and i think it would be better for the patien examinations and said our doctors including dr cole including dr cole say that you are a danger to others and to the people that we serve and we won't let you work i know i believe that th position is that good with there's conflict of medical evidence in many cases in our job is to sort through the medical disputes and resolve both of it in my opinion there is no medical dispute here  the beginning with the very first doctor who heard about this case failure to phillips she never saw the point she gave opinion but she did provide the district with extensive literature which is in the record outlining how the disease of latex allergy in a work setting operates that people who have a taxi allergy can do that chronic exposure increase on their disability make their condition worse  cole retreated from their position so the district then writes to human rights says it's dangerous for her to continue working they write to her saying if you don't apply for disability or quit we're going to fire  for her condition her symptoms her symptoms diminish what she was removed from this particular exposure although her day to day activity she did still have some reactions to balloons of the kids party but  are two parts of that statement is that i don't believe that there is an opinion expressed in the medical group of certain but more importantly the district said we have no control over the level of latex exposure that our firefighters are exposed to now in the district if what the district said under oath is true then the fundamental basis of dr teaching is opinion is not supported by the record and the one  its time and attention appreciate it thank you members of the court richard al think that the normal standards in play here i think it's one of two things it's either the manifest which standard or it's the clearly erroneous standard i think the supreme court in all of the public or court cases not necessarily a question of law and there was a fourteen month period that the plaintiff didn't work but that wasn't i don't think matter working and being disabled on a permanent basis is the same thing i think there's two separate c here because if you recall are the facts here are is during the time period that the pension board particularly dr teaching was trying to hail the plaintiff examined to verify whether or not there was a sleep tech sensitivity or al pain was the fact that the plaintiff was this it just in this brief is is not correct i don't think the wade decision says that they're guilty only one doctor is not sufficient we do have more than one doctor here we have dr cole initially who was an independent director records the initial tests that were performed by the treaters the tests that we performed by the district's explorer cool examiners down to decent bend over backwards to try to verify initially perform some tests the other two has all the credibility he reviewed all those credibility as he bent over backwards to give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and when he tried to again confer with the tusk remember usually he did tests in two thousand and nine and then he suggested he could come to conclusion he says i need to repeat the test we repeat they requested that the test be repeated do or proceed she wasn't able to complete those tests we understand that by the time she was recover making this finding that she was not only disabled the fact that she never did this survey of work the fact that she never requested time off never went to a supervisor and said i need to go home because of the fact that i'm having a little nerdy pre action the fact that she had no symptoms since she left work the fact that during her being able medical exams that the district with fire during the four years before this incident came to came right sure there was never any problem with the disability claim which is what happened in the firefighter and then some time later the district has problems with the employee the employee doesn't do with the district why the fire department their case why didn't do they were able to fire him when the twelve was amended to say is if a firefighter who is found to have recovered from a disability must be reinstated to the fire department within thirty days otherwise there's there's punitive damages it doesn't say a firefighter is denied disability which is what we have here and i think there's two serious differences here if the case was we had granted firefighter words a disability and have been granted a disability pension the district s can strongly that the administrators a process that has been put into place to review pensions such as the one before the court should be given grea in fact put her on administrative leave and i'd like to be answered that question fully but i'd like to initially state it whether or not she could or could not be accommodated were standing issue before the pension doctor's advice to the district was they have no control over anything outside of the fire department itself yes there could have been a nitrile gloves and every single ambulance yes every single thing in the ambulance could have been made l boss would have helped but what happens if she gets into emergency situation and her and i'm in her condition deep in dangerous others even herself what if she's out there around by herself or with a partner and someone dies because of the pension board had to consider the the district's opinion about the the allergy itself well that quite frankly that's really not the case the pension board should not be given any weight quite for to the districts opinion because the pension board has the records for the district reviewed in front of it they could make their own decision they could review those records and they could come to their own conclusion first of all the the district was looking at the entire world and passion for it had to consider whether she was just able from performing fire training duties there was quite frankly no evidence that she ever had difficulties performing those fire fighting duties she incidental basis it's possible that she couldn't happen and that's not what we're here about we're sure about a permanent disability knapping would be incidental disability that is where the line is drawn district's documents were under oath her statement was also wonder out in the pension board had to consider that as well thank you very much for your time i'm sorry you indicated that the district did not terminate her right that i haven't seen anything in writing your honor and the representation that was made at the pension hearing from the district was she's not terminated she's on administrative leave leave and i assume that to mean pending the outcome well since my and then was terminated four years later so the the the contemporaneous medical evidence in the statements of the employer her were not part of valor whatsoever and the question is when the journalist simply wrote it that way do they need to isolate it for someone who would simply deny it or it only applies to people who were at one time period and then were found that they had recovered and terms of if you if you haven't made it doesn't prove you don't have the allergy and it is there's no way that once you hit the ocean you recover completely this this has been a documented fact if you read  that your client attributed it to exertion and now only takes an after g s where does he get that from your client or from somewhere else be the answer is i'm not sure where he got that