 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adamson v. Pondera County2/10/2004
terfield . Adamson's surgeries, and his absence from work also did not prevent him from retaining or advancing his employment with Pondera County, as did the woman's condition in Martinell.
Further, the Hearing Examiner in charge of Adamson's claim never concluded that Adamson's condition precluded him from performing a class of jobs, as was the case in Butterfield . The Hearing Examiner merely determined that Adamson's return could endanger either Adamson or Adamson's co-workers, and such a determination is in accordance with Montana law, namely ยง 49-4-101, MCA.
Finally, as the interpretive guidelines state, Adamson's condition was both temporary and non-chronic, as evidenced by his return to work--with Dr. Luckett's full release--six months after both surgeries.
Accordingly, we hold that both the MHRC and the District Court did not err in concluding that Adamson was not disabled under the Montana Human Rights Act, as there was no error in the Hearing Examiner's legal conclusions.
Affirmed.
JAMES C. NELSON
We Concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
PATRICIA O. COTTER
JIM REGNIER
|