Opinion ID: 6221175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pontinen’s Seizure Disorder is Uncontrolled

Text: Next, we agree with the district court that whether Pon‐ tinen’s seizure disorder was controlled is a material fact about which there is no genuine dispute. Pontinen argues that USS “and its medical personnel conflated the fact that [he] was not actively medicated with his condition being ‘uncontrolled’ and that he had disregarded his neurologist’s treatment plan.” Appellant’s Br. at 20. He claims that a few pieces of evidence support his con‐ tention. First, although Ntovas wrote on his examination form that he stopped Depakote without Dr. Abu‐Aita’s approval, Pontinen claims her deposition transcript refutes the assertion because Ntovas could not recall what specifically Pontinen told her. And in his own deposition, he claims she mischarac‐ terized his answers in arriving at that conclusion. Second, his EEG results were normal. Third, he was on medication and seizure‐free for almost three years. Fourth, he asserts that he only came oﬀ of Depakote with Dr. Abu‐Aita’s approval, and that the neurologist’s progress notes show that. And fifth, the Medical Referral form that Dr. Abu‐Aita returned to Ntovas cleared him to work with no restrictions. No. 21‐1612 11 None of these pieces of evidence create a genuine dispute. Dr. Abu‐Aita’s progress notes are clear: Pontinen’s seizure disorder was “not well controlled” when he first started see‐ ing him but was “well controlled with Depakote.” He repeat‐ edly told Pontinen to never miss a dose because he is at a high risk for having a seizure. Pontinen repeatedly asked to stop taking Depakote but agreed to keep taking it at Dr. Abu‐Aita’s request. But, in February 2017, he stopped agreeing and “in‐ sist[ed]” on coming oﬀ, despite the high risk. Only then, “[s]ince it is [Pontinen’s] decision to get oﬀ the medication,” did the neurologist ensure it was done as safely as possible by showing him how to wean himself oﬀ of it. Dr. Abu‐Aita un‐ equivocally did not approve of the decision. The dispute about what was said to Ntovas at the physical examination does nothing to refute what is clear in the notes. Next, the fact that he had no seizures while taking medication actually works against Pontinen, showing the benefits of con‐ trolling his disorder with medication. The same can be said for the clean EEG, taken shortly after he came oﬀ of Depakote. Finally, the fact that Dr. Abu‐Aita cleared him to work at USS with no restrictions likewise speaks to the good condition he was in shortly after coming oﬀ of Depakote, but does not con‐ tradict in any way that his seizure disorder had become un‐ controlled and that the risk of a seizure had markedly in‐ creased. The evidence shows that Pontinen stopped listening to his neurologist and doing the one thing that brought his disorder under control. Therefore, we agree that the undisputed evi‐ dence shows that his disorder was uncontrolled at the time he applied to work as a Utility Person at USS. See Darnell, 417 12 No. 21‐1612 F.3d at 659–61 (finding that applicant who was “disinter‐ est[ed] in regulating his condition” had uncontrolled diabe‐ tes). Now that his disorder is not under control, Pontinen has returned to a state of high risk for a seizure.