On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment
dismissal of an Ohio disability discrimination claim brought by a current
employee who wanted to return to work following rehabilitation of a severe stroke
before the company’s physician agreed. Stanley v.
BP Products North America, Inc., No. 18-3303
(6th Cir. 12-4-18). Although the plaintiff had been released to
return to work without restrictions by his physician’s office in August 2011,
the company’s physician disagreed after conducting his own medical assessment
and the plaintiff’s physician provided a signed note in November 2011 agreeing
with the company’s physician. The plaintiff
did not provide a contrary note from his personal physician releasing him
without restrictions until July 2012 and he was returned to work the following
month when the company’s physician conducted another assessment and
agreed. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s
argument that the employer could be found to have discriminated against him
without knowledge that his own physician’s November 2011 was flawed and not based on any medical assessment. Employers are generally entitled to accept an employee's doctor’s restrictions at face value.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered a severe
stroke in November 2010 and collected short-term disability. However, after his STD was exhausted and he
completed his rehabilitation, his application for long term disability was
denied after his personal physician – the villain in this story -- failed to submit some required documentation. His physician told him that he would release
him to return to work if he passed a driving assessment, which he did. He was then examined by a Certified Nurse
Practitioner which found him to be physically fit as of August 2011, but did
not conduct a cognitive assessment. At
that point, the employer’s collective bargaining agreement provided that he had
to pass a physical examination by the company’s physician. The Company’s physician agreed with the CNP
that the plaintiff had good strength and reflexes, but had issues with balance,
fine motor skills, coordination and some cognitive skills. For instance, he could not stand long on one
leg, had difficulty with heel to toe walking and could not subtract 7 from
93. Concerned, the company’s physician
studied the plaintiff’s medical file and determined that his physician had
failed to conduct certain necessary tests or to understand the requirements of
the plaintiff’s job. The company’s
physician then restricted the plaintiff to office work, for which there were no
open positions.
The bargaining agreement then required the two physicians to
consult with each other about their disagreement and, if not resolved, select a
specialist to resolve the dispute. The
company’s physician faxed information about the issue to the plaintiff’s
physician and called him in October and November without success. Apparently, the plaintiff’s physician never
reviewed faxes, or returned calls and delegated these issues to his office
staff. The union then pursued the issue
with HR, who called the plaintiff’s physician office to complain about the lack
of response, pointing out that the plaintiff was about to have his utilities
shut off when he was earning neither wages nor LTD. At that point, the
plaintiff’s physician provided a signed note restricting plaintiff’s return to
work and suggesting LTD. The plaintiff
was not provided with a copy. However,
he was awarded LTD, which he rejected because he contended that he was able to
return to work in August.
In March 2012, the plaintiff’s physician signed a second
note saying that he only signed the first note because of information about the
plaintiff’s finances and indicated that the plaintiff could immediately return
to work without restrictions. However,
this second note was not provided to the employer until July 2012. There is no indication in the record whether
the plaintiff’s physician conducted any medical assessment in either November
2011 or March 2012 and the physician denied recalling signing either note. The plaintiff was evaluated again by the
company’s physician in August (in the presence of an assistant and union
representative) and passed all of the physical and cognitive tests. He was immediately returned to work and
remained there when the lawsuit was filed challenging the year delay in
reinstating him to work.
The plaintiff argued that the employer should have realized that
his physician’s November 2011 note was flawed and not based on any medical
assessment or review of his medical file.
However, the Court found that employers are generally entitled to rely
on a doctor’s restrictions at face value.
There was no evidence presented that the employer knew – or should have
known -- that the plaintiff’s physician was simply providing a note as
requested earlier in the day by HR affirming the restrictions so that the
plaintiff could collect LTD.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of
recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not
apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can be changed or amended without
notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If
you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or
retain an employment attorney.
