Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Initiatives was aware of Gretillat's kneeling, crouching and squatting limitations because, after Gretillat’s fitness-for-duty exam, Paca reported to Care Initiatives that Gretillat stated “that given her right total knee replacement it is contraindicated for her to kneel, crouch or squat and she admits to me that ... she cannot do this today.” Such an argument would fail for two reasons: (1) Paca’s report does not indicate that Gretillat had a permanent or long-term limitation, see Williams, 534 U.S. at 198, 122 S.Ct. 681 ("The impairment’s impact must ... be permanent or long term.”) (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(j)(2)(ii)-(iii) (2001)), and (2) Care Initiatives was entitled to rely on Dr. Fehrle's correspondence, which indicated no such problems, see, e.g., Alexander, 321 F.3d at 727 (<HOLDING>). It is also unclear whether squatting, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding employer justified in relying upon plaintiffs physician (B) holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician (C) holding employer was entitled to rely and act upon the written advice from the employees physician (D) recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician (E) holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance
Output (English): holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician