Opinion ID: 1209970
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rohr's Insulin-Dependent Diabetes May Qualify As a Disability

Text: To determine whether an insulin-dependent type 2 diabetic like Rohr is substantially limited in his eating, we must compare the condition, manner or duration under which he can [eat] as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can [eat]. Fraser, 342 F.3d at 1040 (internal quotation marks omitted). The fact that a plaintiff simply differs from the average person in how she performs a major life activity is patently insufficient for a substantial limitation. Id. (emphasis in original). Rather, in deciding whether the impairment is substantially limiting, courts must consider the nature and severity of the [plaintiff's] impairment, the duration or expected duration of the impairment, as well as the permanent or long term impact of the impairment. Id. at 1038 (internal citations omitted). [5] Rohr must show that his diabetes significantly restricts his eating. Id. At the summary judgment stage, precedent does not require comparative or medical evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the impairment of a major life activity.... Rather,... a plaintiff's testimony may suffice to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Head v. Glacier Northwest Inc., 413 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir.2005). However, [t]o survive summary judgment, an affidavit supporting the existence of a disability must not be merely self-serving and must contain sufficient detail to convey the existence of an impairment. Id. at 1059. Finally, we must consider not only whether the symptoms of Rohr's diabetes substantially limit one of his major life activities, but also whether his efforts to mitigate the disease constitute a substantial limitation. The Supreme Court directed in Sutton that if a person is taking measures to correct for, or mitigate, a physical or mental impairment, the effects of those measuresboth positive and negativemust be taken into account when judging whether that person is `substantially limited' in a major life activity and thus `disabled' under the Act. 527 U.S. at 482, 119 S.Ct. 2139. We therefore consider the effectiveness, side effects and burdens of a plaintiff's mitigating measures. Id. at 482-84, 119 S.Ct. 2139. We conclude that Rohr has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his diabetes substantially limits his life activity of eating. The record is replete with statements, both by Rohr and his doctors, that to manage his disease Rohr is required to strictly monitor what, and when, he eats. Rohr stated that these restrictions constrain him every day, whether it's a workday, a weekend or a holiday. [ER 65.] He cannot eat large meals or skip meals, and must eat a snack every few hours. [ER 65.] He must schedule each day's blood tests, medications and food intake. [ER 89.] He sometimes become[s] weak and dizzy without warning, and only when he eats something do these sensations quickly subside. [ER 90.] If he fails to follow his diet regimen for more than a meal or two, his blood sugar rises to a level that aggravates his disease. [ER 89.] While Rohr and his wife used to schedule frequent trips during vacation time to go to Rocky Point or to visit family in Utah, they no longer do so because it is increasingly difficult for him to follow his diet during travel. [ER 90.] Rohr stated that overall, [c]ontrolling diabetes is like being on a chemical roller coaster. [6] [ER 106.] The district court oversimplified Rohr's condition when it opined that if he stays on his medicines and watches what and when he eats the only limitation on his activities are the work-related restrictions recommended by his physicians. [ER 124.] While it may seem easy to take a pill or shot of insulin, the reality of diabetes, a chronic and incurable disease, is not so simple. For people like Rohr, who must treat their diabetes with insulin, the failure to take insulin will result in severe problems and eventually death. See American Diabetes Association Position Statement: Insulin Administration, Diabetes Care 27:S106-107 (2004). Insulin injections themselves can be dangerous. Rohr stated in his deposition that it is difficult to determine how much insulin to take, as the necessary amount varies depending on the food and activity level. [ER 47-49, 65.] Generally, food raises blood glucose levels while exercise and insulin reduce them. But other factors play a role, too ( e.g., mental stress, illness and injury). To obtain the appropriate balance, Rohr must test his blood glucose levels through a finger stick test numerous times a day, and adjust insulin, food and activity level according to the results. [ER 47-49, 65.] If daily insulin injections alone more or less stabilized Rohr's blood sugar levels, such that any limitation imposed on his diet would be minor, then Rohr's major life activity of eating might not be substantially limited. See, e.g., Ingles v. Neiman Marcus Group, 974 F.Supp. 996, 1001-02 (S.D.Tex.1997) (holding that diabetic plaintiff who was merely required to maintain a normal, good, healthy diet was not substantially limited; plaintiff's condition was substantially controlled with oral medication, and he did not have to take insulin). However, Rohr has alleged substantial limitations on his eating in spite of his medicine and insulin. He must snack regularly, plan his daily schedule around his diet, avoid skipping meals and eat immediately when he feels dizzy or light-headed. The general population does not have to snack on something every few hours to regulate sugar intake; moreover, the general population is not medically required to plan daily schedules around a dietary regimen. [ER 65.] Straying from a diet for more than one or two meals is not a cause for medical concern for most people, and skipping a meal, or eating a large one, does not expose them to the risk of fainting. [7] It is simply no answer to say that  if he strictly controls his diet he is not substantially limited; for Rohr, the effort required to control his diet is itself substantially limiting. In short, Rohr has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration in which he can eat, compared to the general population. See Fraser, 342 F.3d at 1038-40. Indeed, this court and others have found a sufficient showing of a substantial limitation on considerably less evidence than Rohr has presented. See, e.g., Head, 413 F.3d at 1058; Gonsalves v. J.F. Fredericks Tool Co., Inc., 964 F.Supp. 616, 621 (D.Conn.1997) (plaintiff's statement that he had difficulty sleeping and eating was sufficient to permit a finding that his diabetes substantially limited a major life activity.). Therefore, a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether Rohr has a disability, and summary judgment should not have been granted.