Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
The 28-year-old centre-back spent a spell on the sidelines with a similar problem last season. He also missed the start of the season after surgery on a back injury before returning at the end of October. "It is not a recurrence of the injury which required surgery so that is a positive," said NAME_1. "Unfortunately, the negative is that he has soft muscle damage and at the moment it is looking like it will probably be three to four weeks I would think." NAME_2 will now miss the second leg of the Capital One Cup semi-final at Liverpool on Tuesday. The Reds beat NAME_3 1-0 in the first leg. The Potters also face an FA Cup fourth-round tie at Crystal Palace as well as Premier League games against Manchester United, NAME_4 and Bournemouth in the next month.

Summary:
1. NAME_3 City defender NAME_5 has been ruled out for up to four weeks with a hamstring injury and could miss the rest of the season.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Write your response with at least 150 words.
user