NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
The ADA Amendments Act has substantially broadened coverage under the law. An example comes inGogos v. AMS Mechanical Systems, Inc., 737 F.3d 1170 (7th Cir. 2013). Mr. Gogos worked as a pipe welder and had been taking medication to reduce his elevated blood pressure for the past eight years. He commenced employment with the defendant in December 2012 as a welder. One month later his blood pressure spiked to a very high level, causing some intermittent vision loss.
After reporting to work on January 30, 2013, Gogos noticed that his right eye was red. He sought and received permission to obtain immediate medical treatment for his blood pressure and ocular conditions. As he left the work site to go for treatment, he saw his general foreman and said he was headed to the hospital for health reasons. The foreman immediately fired him.
Gogos sued under the ADA, but his case was dismissed by the district court because the court felt that his medical conditions were transitory. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the ADA Amendments Act and observed: “Under the 2008 amendments, a person with an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, or a record of one, is disabled, even if the impairment is ‘transitory and minor’ (defined as lasting six months or less). The court noted that the “transitory and minor” language only applies if the law suit is premised on being regarded as having an impairment. That was not the basis of Mr. Gogos’s law suit. The court also noted that impairments that are episodic or in remission constitute a disability if they substantially limit a major life activity when active.
Based on these provisions, Gogos’s episode of a blood-pressure spike and vision loss are covered disabilities. He attributes both problems to his longstanding blood-pressure condition, and the ADA’s implementing regulation lists hypertension as an example of an ‘impairment that may be episodic.’ Under the 2008 amendments, ‘the fact that the periods during which an episodic impairment is active and substantially limits a major life activity may be brief or occur infrequently is no longer relevant to determining whether the impairment substantially limits a major life activity.’
The court said that what was relevant was whether Gogos’s higher-than-usual blood pressure and vision loss substantially impaired a major life activity when they occurred. The court accepted Gogos’s argument that he had impairment of two major life activities: circulatory function and eyesight. The court also said that the chronic blood-pressure condition could also qualify as a disability because mitigating measures, such as medication that controls the condition, cannot be considered when assessing disability. The condition must be considered without the benefit of medication in determining whether the condition is substantially limiting. For these reasons the court vacated the dismissal of Gogos’s case.
The lesson here is to appreciate that coverage under the ADA has been greatly expanded. In the aftermath of the ADA Amendments Act, it will be extremely difficult for an employer to prevail in ADA litigation by arguing that there is no covered disability.