Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Over view Case Study- Sulima worked for the Department of Defense- Bec.docx

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Prochain SlideShare
Medications
Medications
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 2 Publicité

Over view Case Study- Sulima worked for the Department of Defense- Bec.docx

Télécharger pour lire hors ligne

Over view Case Study:
Sulima worked for the Department of Defense. Because he was morbidly obese and suffered from sleep apnea, which is likely related to the obesity, his physician had him taking weight-loss medication. The medication caused gastrointestinal problems that required him to have to go to the restroom frequently
Solution
Affirmed. A non-permanent or temporary condition cannot be a substantial impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The side effects Sulima suffered from his medication did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Under the ADA, the effects of a treatment can constitute a disability, even if the underlying condition is not itself disability, as long as the plaintiff can show that 1) the treatment is required in the prudent judgment of the medical profession, 2) the treatment is not just an attractive option, and 3) that the treatment is not required solely in anticipation of an impairment resulting from the plaintiff

.

Over view Case Study:
Sulima worked for the Department of Defense. Because he was morbidly obese and suffered from sleep apnea, which is likely related to the obesity, his physician had him taking weight-loss medication. The medication caused gastrointestinal problems that required him to have to go to the restroom frequently
Solution
Affirmed. A non-permanent or temporary condition cannot be a substantial impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The side effects Sulima suffered from his medication did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Under the ADA, the effects of a treatment can constitute a disability, even if the underlying condition is not itself disability, as long as the plaintiff can show that 1) the treatment is required in the prudent judgment of the medical profession, 2) the treatment is not just an attractive option, and 3) that the treatment is not required solely in anticipation of an impairment resulting from the plaintiff

.

Publicité
Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Plus par lmark1 (20)

Plus récents (20)

Publicité

Over view Case Study- Sulima worked for the Department of Defense- Bec.docx

  1. 1. Over view Case Study: Sulima worked for the Department of Defense. Because he was morbidly obese and suffered from sleep apnea, which is likely related to the obesity, his physician had him taking weight-loss medication. The medication caused gastrointestinal problems that required him to have to go to the restroom frequently Solution Affirmed. A non-permanent or temporary condition cannot be a substantial impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The side effects Sulima suffered from his medication did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Under the ADA, the effects of a treatment can constitute a disability, even if the underlying condition is not itself disability, as long as the plaintiff can show that 1) the treatment is required in the prudent judgment of the medical profession, 2) the treatment is not just an attractive option, and 3) that the treatment is not required solely in anticipation of an impairment resulting from the plaintiff Decision Affirmed. A non-permanent or temporary condition cannot be a substantial impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The side effects Sulima suffered from his medication did not constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Under the ADA, the effects of a treatment can constitute a disability, even if the underlying condition is not itself disability, as long as the plaintiff can show that 1) the treatment is required in the prudent judgment of the medical profession, 2) the treatment is not just an attractive option, and 3) that the treatment is not required solely in anticipation of an impairment resulting from the plaintiff

×