So, in this case, the ADA applies because it says they can’t fire a surgeon who is mental. Eve if th guy WASN’T mental, the whole point is that they couldn’t fire him over BEING mental.

Either way, it’s still messed up.

QFT.

Besides that, if the claim is that he DIDN’T have mental problems, how could they possibly b violating the ADA? The fact that he had mental problems is the only reason the ADA was invoked in the first place!

Are you saying that the news account is wrong about his having been diagnosed with Bipolar disorder? What other part of the first paragraph is incorrect. And if it is accurate, do you think a jury would be swayed by it? I sure do and I doubt that saying that the ADA demanded they keep in on would cut it unless they had a court order to that effect.

The problem here is not that the hospital could have or should have accommodated him. It is that whatever they did, they would be held liable.

At this time, the board decided that in order to reclaim priveleges, Dr. Haas would have to persuade a fellow orthopaedic surgeon from the hospital — that is, the doctors who COMPETED AGAINST HIM for patients — to supervise him for six months. Dr. Haas was not permitted to go outside the hospital system to find a supervisor. When a respected general surgeon volunteered to supervise Dr. Haas, the board rejected his offer. After six months, no one had agreed to supervise Dr. Haas in surgery; when he complained to the board that the standard they had established was impossible to meet, they refused to hear his complaint, on the grounds that it was not timely.

It seems plain from these facts that WVHCS had ZERO intention of accomodating Dr. Haas, reasonably or otherwise. Despite reports from three psychiatrists that Dr. Haas was able to work, despite the presence of a surgeon willing to supervise him, they refused to implement a plan that he could meet. I think the hospital plainly violated the ADA, and the jury award was appropriate.

But this is a yet sicker perversion. Here, it’s not merely that the degree of liability isn’t ascertained, it’s that you face diametrically opposed consequences for the same set of actions. Even with a strongman, you know that the punishment will go from “bad” to “worse” and you can at least plan for that. But here, no plan is rational, and a model citizen – intent on obeying the law the best he can – is crushed.

The argument that lawsuits might be expensive but aren’t simply raw opportunism (and thus have social value because they advance some good cause) is obliterated with a case like this.

I wouldn’t hire a surgeon who was a double amputee, because his disability prevents him from performing his job in an acceptable manner (you kinda need your hands for surgery), and I wouldn’t hire a person who has an unreasonably high expectation (both by predisposition and past historical example) of being able to perform their functions in a safe and proper manner.

In fact, I’d hazard a guess that many lawyers LIKE this situation – guaranteed employment and money for them.