Opinion ID: 2762986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Plaintiff’s Disability

Text: The ADA prohibits “discriminat[ion] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability,” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), including by “not making reasonable accommodations 6 to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity,” id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). Thus, to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that [s]he (1) is a disabled person as defined by the ADA; (2) is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired; and (3) suffered discrimination by an employer or prospective employer because of that disability. EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028, 1037–38 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). This case turns on the first prong—whether Ms. Felkins is a disabled person. Under the ADA, “[t]he term ‘disability’ means, with respect to an individual—(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Because Ms. Felkins does not contend that she had a record of an impairment or that the City regarded her as impaired, her sole claim is one for actual impairment under paragraph (A). Hence, she “must (1) have a recognized impairment, (2) identify one or more appropriate major life activities, and (3) show the impairment substantially limits one or more of those activities.” Carter v. Pathfinder Energy Servs., Inc., 662 F.3d 1134, 1142 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Among the major life activities in the ADA are walking, standing, and lifting, 7 and “the operation of a major bodily function, including . . . normal cell growth [and] . . . circulatory . . . function[s].” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). In district court Ms. Felkins consistently identified her disabling impairment as avascular necrosis. Her complaint stated: “Ms. Felkins suffers from avascular necrosis . . . . Her impairment substantially limits her ability to do . . . major life activities . . . .” Aplt. App. at 2 ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Likewise, her motion for partial summary judgment stated that “[b]ecause of her avascular necrosis,” she could not walk normally and her major bodily functions of normal cell growth and blood circulation were also substantially impaired. Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 4, Felkins, No. 1:11-cv-03390MSK-KMT (Nov. 13, 2012). And her response to the City’s motion for summary judgment said that her “avascular necrosis substantially impairs her major bodily functions of normal cell growth and normal blood circulation,” Aplt. App. at 53, and that her condition also substantially affected her lifting, walking, and standing. After this recitation the response concluded, “Clearly, her avascular necrosis was an ADA disability.” Id. at 54.1 Therefore, Ms. Felkins had to present sufficient evidence to prove 1 In her reply brief on appeal, Ms. Felkins argues for the first time that her disabling impairment is, alternatively, her broken leg. But this is too late to raise an issue. See Tele-Commc’ns, Inc. v. Comm’r, 104 F.3d 1229, 1232 (10th Cir. 1997) (“Generally, an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”); Coleman v. B-G Maint. Mgmt. of Colo., Inc., 108 F.3d 1199, 1205 (10th Cir. 1997) (“It is not sufficient to merely mention an issue in a reply brief. Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived.”). 8 (1) that she has a condition (namely, avascular necrosis) (2) that substantially limits at least one of her five identified major life activities.2 We hold that she did not. None of the medical evidence in the appellate record supports Ms. Felkins’s allegation that she has avascular necrosis or details the degree to which it affects her major life activities. After Ms. Felkins’s surgery, a physician assistant filled out an FMLA form stating that Ms. Felkins did not have a chronic condition. That same physician assistant later wrote a note stating only “Return to work full duty 1/7/09.” Id. at 37. There is no mention of avascular necrosis, much less a description of its effects on Ms. Felkins. That leaves only Ms. Felkins’s own declarations. She states that she has avascular necrosis and told others that she has the condition. She also asserts that the condition caused her femur fracture, that it complicated her femur surgery, and that it caused her alleged difficulties walking, standing, and lifting. Such lay evidence, however, is inadmissible in court and thus cannot be used to oppose summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Ms. Felkins does not claim to be a medical expert, so her opinion testimony on a medical issue cannot be “based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. For example, 2 Ms. Felkins argues that the City concedes that she has avascular necrosis. We do not think that is a fair characterization of the City’s brief in this court. But in any event it cannot be doubted that the City has vigorously argued that Ms. Felkins has not produced evidence of any substantial limitation of a major life activity caused by her alleged avascular necrosis. 9 “a lay witness with experience could testify that a substance appeared to be blood, but . . . [he] would have to qualify as an expert before he could testify that bruising around the eyes is indicative of skull trauma.” Id. advisory committee’s note, 2000 Amendments. And we have said that a lay witness may testify to someone’s “unusual, abnormal or bizarre conduct” and opine on his sanity, United States v. Goodman, 633 F.3d 963, 968– 69 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), but not to his “manic depressive state,” United States v. Walshe, 526 F. App’x 834, 839 (10th Cir. 2013) (emphasis omitted). Other examples from this court predate the Federal Rules of Evidence, but the common law that they apply matches Rule 701. See Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 160–61 (1995) (plurality opinion) (“Where the Rules [of Evidence] did depart from their common-law antecedents, in general the [Advisory] Committee said so.”). In Franklin v. Shelton, 250 F.2d 92, 97 (10th Cir. 1957), we said: [W]here injuries complained of are of such character as to require skilled and professional persons to determine the cause and extent thereof, they must be proved by the testimony of medical experts, but . . . a lay witness is competent to testify concerning those physical injuries and conditions which are susceptible to observation by an ordinary person. In that case a car-accident victim was held competent to testify about such matters as her difficulties focusing her left eye, her now-irregular menstrual cycle, and her children’s postaccident nervousness, but not competent to testify that her son had suffered a punctured lung and two broken ribs or that her eye condition had been caused by the accident. See id. at 97–98. Similarly, we have held that a lay witness could testify to someone’s night sweats, continuous coughing, and gradual weakening, see United States 10 v. Monger, 70 F.2d 361, 363 (10th Cir. 1934), but only an expert could testify to whether a patient’s tuberculosis “is incipient or has been arrested,” United States v. McShane, 70 F.2d 991, 996 (10th Cir. 1934). These evidentiary principles apply, of course, to ADA claims. Ms. Felkins’s declarations are admissible insofar as they describe her injuries and symptoms, such as pain and difficulties walking, standing, and lifting. They are inadmissible, however, insofar as they diagnose her condition as avascular necrosis or state how that condition causes limitations on major life activities, for those are clearly matters “beyond the realm of common experience and . . . require the special skill and knowledge of an expert witness.” James River Ins. Co. v. Rapid Funding, LLC, 658 F.3d 1207, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ms. Felkins argues that the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, lowered the standard of proof for disability claimants and relieves her of the obligation to provide expert testimony. The ADAAA conveyed “the intent of Congress that the primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations, and . . . that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.” Id. § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554. Thus, regulations implementing the ADAAA (though not yet in effect when Ms. Felkins was fired) provide that “[t]he comparison of an individual’s performance of a major life activity to the performance of the same major life activity by most people in the general 11 population usually will not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(v) (2011). We are not saying, however, that Ms. Felkins failed to show that her performance of a major life activity is significantly lower than that of others. Rather, the failure of proof on which our decision turns is that she has not provided proper evidence that any limitation she may have is caused by avascular necrosis. Ms. Felkins also argues that the City concedes on appeal the admissibility of her declarations and that it did not timely raise its admissibility argument in district court. The first argument misrepresents the City’s position. Its appellate brief first contends that Ms. Felkins’s declarations are an attempt to create “a sham fact issue,” in contradiction to her deposition testimony, Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1237 (10th Cir. 1986), a contention we need not address, and then contends that even assuming that they are not a sham, the declarations do not provide adequate evidence. Ms. Felkins misreads the assuming-not-a-sham sentence as a concession of admissibility. As to the second argument, Ms. Felkins was on notice of the need to provide admissible evidence in district court. After she filed her motion for partial summary judgment and an accompanying declaration stating that her avascular necrosis caused her femur fracture, the City’s motion for summary judgment challenged her status as disabled, stating: “No evidence in this matter indicates the femur fracture resulted from any disability. Neither the doctor’s note allowing her to return to work, the FMLA paperwork filled out by Plaintiff’s physician [assistant], nor her testimony, establish a recognizable disability under the ADA.” Def. City of Lakewood’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 12 4–5, Felkins, No. 1:11-cv-03390-MSK-KMT (Dec. 20, 2012) (citations to exhibits omitted). The City thus fulfilled its “initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,” the absence of evidence establishing a fact on which the nonmovant had the burden of persuasion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[A] movant that will not bear the burden of persuasion at trial need not negate the nonmovant’s claim. Such a movant may make its prima facie demonstration simply by pointing out to the court a lack of evidence for the nonmovant on an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). The City was not obligated to state what evidence would create a genuine issue of material fact. In response to the City’s motion, it was Ms. Felkins’s burden to “set forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for [her].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This burden was not satisfied. In short, Ms. Felkins has failed to present admissible evidence that she suffers from avascular necrosis that has caused any of her claimed limitations of walking, standing, and lifting, or of enjoying normal cell growth or circulatory function. The district court properly granted summary judgment.