 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yamamoto v. Midwest Screw Products6/28/2002
s to limit his lifting loads or shorten his working hours for his most recent back and leg pain.
. In order to establish a record of impairment, appellant must establish that he has a history of long-term or permanent disability which would qualify him as disabled under R.C. 4112.02. The disability must meet the statutory definition of being a substantial limitation on one or more major life activities.
. In the instant case, appellant asserts that his history of medical ailments establishes a record of impairment which renders him disabled under R.C. 4112.02. However, using the same analysis for determining whether a particular ailment meets the definition for disability, appellant has not established a record of impairment under R.C. 4112.02. Appellant does have a history of heart disease and vascular disease which required surgeries, however, each surgery was followed by a short-term recovery period after which appellant returned to full-time working status. His current impairment never necessitated surgery, a written restriction on his working hours or a lifting restriction from a physician. Mere references to previous instances of ill-health followed by a short recovery period are not sufficient evidence of a record of impairment to establish true disability status under R.C. 4112.02.
. Appellant's third assignment of error is without merit.
. Appellant's fourth assignment of error is as follows:
. "The trial court erred in not granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff by virtue of the unequivocal evidence that Plaintiff was terminated because he could not return to work without accommodation."
. Appellant seeks a partial summary judgment on the issue of liability contending that appellee had a policy of not accommodating disabled employees which is a per se violation of R.C. 4112.02. Appellant asserts that appellee's failure to consider a modified work schedule for appellant coupled with appellant's termination after refusing to work ten hours per day results in a refusal to provide accommodation to a disabled employee.
. Under both R.C. 4112.02 and the ADA, an employer is required to make "reasonable accommodation" for disabled employees or applicants for employment to enable them to qualify for jobs unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer's business. However, a duty to provide reasonable accommodations only arises when the employee meets the statutory definition of disabled.
. In this case, appellant argues that appellee maintained a policy of not providing reasonable accommodations to disabled employees which is a per se violation of both R.C.4112.02 and the ADA. However, as noted above, appellant is not disabled under either the Ohio or federal statute. Appellant may have periodic back and leg pain which could be classified as an injury , but he has not established a prima facie case for being disabled. The question of whether reasonable accommodations were or were not made cannot be addressed where appellant is not disabled. Therefore, appellee had no duty to make reasonable accommodations to the appellant for his injury.
. In construing the evidence most favorably in appellee's favor, this court finds that the trial court did not err in not granting appellant's partial summary judgment motion.
. Appellant's fourth assignment of error is without merit.
. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
WILLIAM M. O'NEILL, P.J., DONALD R. FORD, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|