Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Cir. 1996)). Under this “functional approach” to the application of absolute immunity, the Unit ed States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has directed courts to analyze the “nature of the function performed” by the government official. Beck v. Tex. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 634 (5th Cir. 2000). “In other words, immunity attaches to particular official functions, not to particular offices.” O’Neal, 113 F.3d at 65. Absolute immunity extends to officials whose responsibilities are functionally comparable to those of judges and prosecutors. See id. at 67. The Fifth Circuit has recognized absolute immunity for officials that are members, attorneys, and directors of professional licensing boards. See, e.g., Di Ruzzo v. Tabaracci, 480 Fed.Appx. 796 (5th Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Beck, 204 F.3d 629 (recognizing absolute 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that board panels may consider only independent medical evidence to support their findings resulting in va altering its longstanding practice of including members of the board with medical expertise on each panel and relying on their medical opinion in rendering board decisions (B) holding that county airport board and twenty board members in their representative capacities had sovereign immunity in suit for negligence (C) recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing (D) recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board (E) holding the courts ruling precludes an extension of absolute immunity to board members decision to terminate faculty member
Output (English): holding that board panels may consider only independent medical evidence to support their findings resulting in va altering its longstanding practice of including members of the board with medical expertise on each panel and relying on their medical opinion in rendering board decisions