Opinion ID: 6221175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequate Medical Evidence

Text: Before engaging the substance of the direct‐threat analy‐ sis, we seek to understand whether the employer’s decision was based on appropriate evidence and a truly individualized assessment. See Darnell, 417 F.3d at 660. Here, the ultimate de‐ cision by USS was based on the restrictions determined by Ntovas and Dr. Norman. Therefore, their analysis is what must be a “reasonable medical judgment” that relies on ap‐ propriate evidence. Ntovas and Dr. Norman considered the DOT regulations; the Health Inventory Form; the physical examination; Dr. Abu‐Aita’s response to the Medical Referral form, including the clean EEG; and Dr. Abu‐Aita’s treatment notes. These sources all either represent “current medical knowledge” or are the “best available objective evidence.” To the extent that No. 21‐1612 9 Ntovas and Dr. Norman gave more weight to some of the ev‐ idence, that was within their “reasonable medical judgment.” There is no question, however, that their judgment was premised on the consideration of adequate evidence, as con‐ templated by the ADA and supporting regulations. See, e.g., Darnell, 417 F.3d at 660 (noting that even “testimonial evi‐ dence can provide suﬃcient support for a direct threat find‐ ing”); Bekker v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., 229 F.3d 662, 668 (7th Cir. 2000) (approving of district court analysis finding that “employee and patient reports of her smelling of alcohol con‐ stituted suﬃciently objective evidence”).