Opinion ID: 797678
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kleiber's Attempts to Return to Work

Text: 5
6 In late March 2000, Kleiber met with a counselor from the Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (BVR), a state agency whose mission is to provide service leading to employment for Ohioans with disabilities. In April 2000, the BVR determined Kleiber was eligible for its services and soon assigned Rodney Brandel, the BVR's liaison with Honda, to Kleiber's case. 7 Brandel arranged for Kleiber to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation — intended to identify the cognitive limitations resulting from Kleiber's brain injury — with Dr. James Arnett on August 17, 2000. Dr. Arnett's evaluation noted various limitations, including deficits in (1) attention and concentration, including memory; (2) problem-solving abilities; and (3) manual dexterity. Dr. Arnett concluded that the evaluation revealed mild to moderate impairment of brain function, and that the deficits raise[d] questions about safety in the performance of high risk activities. Joint Appendix (J.A.) at 20-21 (Report of Neuropsychological Evaluation at 5-6). He further noted that he could not predict whether Kleiber's attention and concentration deficits would be further compromised in a chaotic environment. 8 After receiving Dr. Arnett's evaluation, Brandel met with Dr. Arnett, Kleiber, and Kleiber's parents on September 12, 2000, to discuss the results and Kleiber's prospects for returning to Honda. Based upon Dr. Arnett's evaluation, Brandel did not expect Kleiber to be able to return immediately to his former position at Honda, nor did Brandel believe that anyone else at the meeting had such an expectation. 9
10 Brandel began communicating with Honda regarding Kleiber's limitations and his desire to return to work. On October 10, 2000, Dr. Mysiw filled out a Honda document labeled a Work Capacity Form. On the form, Dr. Mysiw indicated Kleiber's restrictions were cognitive—i.e., memory, attention, and that these issues require[d] supervision and possibly a job coach. J.A. at 316 (Work Capacity Form). He also indicated that Kleiber could not work in an environment featuring unrestricted heights, and stated that Kleiber's endurance was likely poor. Id. Sometime after October 10, 2000, Brandel submitted the Work Capacity Form to Honda. 11 Notwithstanding Kleiber's limitations, Doug Bigler, Honda's placement leader for the Marysville plant, and Cathy Cronley, Honda's in-house registered nurse, began to identify certain positions that they thought Kleiber might be able to perform. These positions included the Right Rear Beam Tighten position in [the] Assembly [Department], the Front Bumper Install position in [the] Assembly [Department], and processes in the Paint Department. J.A. at 25-27 (Bigler Aff. ¶¶ 14-15, 19). Ultimately, Honda determined that none of these positions were appropriate for Kleiber because they required walking on uneven surfaces, working under substantial time pressures, and employing fine manual dexterity. 12 During this process, the Honda representatives determined that they needed more precise information regarding Kleiber's limitations, so they scheduled a meeting with Brandel. On October 27, 2000, Brandel and Joe Roop, Kleiber's job coach from the BVR, met with several Honda representatives to discuss Kleiber's prospects for returning to work. According to Brandel, [t]he idea was to have the [job] coach work with Honda staff to identify a suitable position to start. J.A. at 111-12 (Brandel Dep. at 75:23-76:2). Kleiber did not attend this meeting. The Honda contingent included Bigler, Cronley, and Jean Jackson, a disability and case-management nurse. At the meeting, Honda's representatives indicated that the Work Capacity Form did not provide enough information for them to identify job processes that Kleiber could perform. Consequently, Honda's representatives requested more specific information and asked that Kleiber be evaluated by Dr. Robert Shadel at Health Partners, Inc. 1 13
14 Kleiber visited Dr. Shadel on October 30, 2000, for a Fitness for Duty Examination. In this examination, Kleiber's performance on a memory test revealed a significant memory deficit. J.A. at 28 (Shadel Aff. ¶ 3). Dr. Shadel also reviewed Dr. Arnett's earlier neuropsychological evaluation of Kleiber and concluded that both evaluations were consistent and that there was no reason to expect significant improvement in Mr. Kleiber's condition in the future. Id. (¶ 4). Consequently, Dr. Shadel concluded that Kleiber's limitations in gait, balance, upper-extremity coordination, cognitive processing, and memory would substantially inhibit Kleiber's returning to work. He also expressed some reservations regarding Kleiber's ability to perform job functions involving lifting, carrying, and moving around in the factory environment. Nonetheless, he ordered a Functional Capacity Evaluation from Health Partners's physical therapist Sanford Goldstein. 15 During the Functional Capacity Evaluation, Kleiber lost his balance while walking down a flight of stairs and tested inadequate for balance on level surfaces. J.A. at 138-39 (Goldstein Dep. 30:8-9, 32:12-13). Based upon his examination, Goldstein identified four underlying limitations: (1) safety issues resulting from decreased motor planning; (2) poor balance on level surfaces; (3) decreased grip strength; and (4) decreased finger dexterity. Goldstein concluded that Kleiber should not be assigned to jobs that require balance on uneven surfaces, fine motor and medium motor dexterity, or rapid cyclical work. J.A. at 403 (Phys. Work Performance Evaluation Summary). However, when asked in deposition what constituted a rapid pace, Goldstein was unable to answer. J.A. at 141 (Goldstein Dep. at 43:15-18). 16 After receiving Goldstein's Functional Capacity Evaluation, Dr. Shadel wrote a report regarding Kleiber, dated November 13, 2000. Dr. Shadel concluded that Kleiber (1) could not work independently; (2) needed to work where balance would not be at issue; (3) had to work in a position that allowed only light gripping and simple, slow hand movements due to his dexterity deficits; and (4) could not be placed in a job requiring multiple processes. Additionally, Shadel noted that any return to work would have to be gradual because Kleiber's endurance was likely poor and that it was impossible to predict how Kleiber would function in a busy and noisy environment. 17
18 Based upon Dr. Shadel's report and a thorough review of [Honda]'s production work environment, Honda's placement committee determined that Kleiber's limitations precluded him from working as a Honda Production Associate. J.A. at 397 (Memo dated Nov. 16, 2000). Consequently, and consistently with its policy of releasing employees who have been unable to work for twelve consecutive months, Honda terminated Kleiber's employment effective November 22, 2000. Randy Moore, Honda's assistant manager for restriction placement, sent a letter to Brandel on November 30, 2000 indicating that Honda was unable to accommodate Kleiber, and that it consequently terminated him. Brandel responded on December 4 with a letter reiterating the BVR's willingness to continue working with Honda on Kleiber's behalf, and requesting documentation of Kleiber's Functional Capacity Evaluation and Fitness for Duty Examination, as well as specific information regarding the jobs for which Kleiber was considered.