A Capehart Scatchard Blog

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Holds That Plaintiff Failed to Adequately Explain How He Receives SSD Benefits and Can Still Be Able to Work

By on June 11, 2012 in ADA with 0 Comments

EEOC could not explain how employee could claim ability to work with accommodation while getting SSDI payments.

Michael Turner worked for Greater Baltimore Medical Center (GBMC) as a unit secretary since 1984.  In 2005, Turner was hospitalized for necrotizing fasciitis, which is a life-threatening condition.  He later suffered a stroke during the same year. Turner also suffered from diabetes.

On December 29, 2005, he applied for SSDI benefits stating, “I became unable to work because of my disabling condition on January 15, 2005. I am still disabled.” His application was approved on January 22, 2006 and he was awarded benefits retroactive to January 15, 2005.

Notwithstanding the fact that he received SSDI benefits, Turner notified GMBC in January 2006 that he intended to return to work.  His doctor, Rosenblum, completed a form indicating that Turner could return to work as a part-time unit secretary as early as March 6, 2006, subject to certain restrictions involving walking, bending, and lifting.  He also underwent an exam with GBMC’s physician, who indicated that Turner could return to work on a limited part-time basis in a low-volume area that did not require multitasking.

GBMC advised Turner that it could not provide him with a position unless he could return to the same full-time job he performed before he went out on disability. A file clerk position was available but Turner was not interested in that job since it required mostly standing and walking.  He applied for the part-time unit secretary position but was not offered the position because of the restrictions from GBMC’s physician.

A few months later, Dr. Rosenblum lifted all restrictions and indicated that Turner could work a full 40-hour week.  GBMC terminated Turner’s position on June 30, 2006.  Following his termination, Turner volunteered over 1,100 hours of his time to GBMC and applied to 28 positions at GBMC, ten of which he was qualified for.  However, Turner never notified the Social Security Administration about his improved medical condition, which was one of the requirements on his disability application.

Turner filed a charge with the EEOC contending that the Medical Center violated the ADA by terminating his employment.  The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that GBMC violated the ADA and filed an enforcement action.  The Fourth Circuit reviewed the leading case of Cleveland v. Policy Management System Corp 120 F.3d 513, (5th Cir. 1997).  That case held that a plaintiff should have the opportunity to explain the apparent inconsistency between asserting he or she can work and claiming at the same time entitlement to SSD benefits.

The Court noted, “There can be little doubt that the conflict between Mr. Turner’s SSDI application and his ability to work with or without reasonable accommodation is genuine. . . Taken together, the SSDI application and documentation reasonably communicated that Mr. Turner was and would continue to be totally or almost-totally disabled.”  The Court added, “Mr. Turner did not revise his statements to SSDI, and apparently never notified the SSA about a change in his condition.”

The EEOC argued that Mr. Turner eventually participated in the Ticket to Work program, which the EEOC contended resolved any conflict with his disability application.  But the Court respondend that that this happened in 2009, almost two years after Turner filed his ADA charge.  The Court also rejected the EEOC’s argument that Turner’s mere “passive receipt” of SSD benefits does not mandate the need to explain inconsistency.  The Court said, “But Cleveland was not principally concerned with distinguishing between active and passive representations.  Rather, its focus was resolving factual conflicts generated by contradictory representations.  As already explained, the factual conflict here is unresolvable.”

This case may be found at EEOC v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Inc. 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7851 (4th Cir. 2012).


About the Author

About the Author:

John H. Geaney, a shareholder and co-chair of Capehart Scatchard's Workers' Compensation department, began an email newsletter entitled Currents in Workers’ Compensation, ADA and FMLA in 2001 in order to keep clients and readers informed on leading developments in these three areas of law. Since that time he has written over 500 newsletter updates.

Mr. Geaney is the author of Geaney’s New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Manual for Practitioners, Adjusters & Employers. The manual is distributed by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education (NJICLE). He also authored an ADA and FMLA manual as distributed by NJICLE. If you are interested in purchasing the manual, please contact NJICLE at 732-214-8500 or visit their website at www.njicle.com.

Mr. Geaney represents employers in the defense of workers’ compensation, ADA and FMLA matters. He is a Fellow of the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers of the American Bar Association and is certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a workers’ compensation law attorney. He is one of two firm representatives to the National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network. He has served on the Executive Committee of Capehart Scatchard for over ten (10) years.

A graduate of Holy Cross College summa cum laude, Mr. Geaney obtained his law degree from Boston College Law School. He has been named a “Super Lawyer” by his peers and Law and Politics. He serves as Vice President of the Friends of MEND, the fundraising arm of a local charitable organization devoted to promoting affordable housing.

Capehart Scatchard is a full service law firm with offices in Mt. Laurel and Trenton, New Jersey. The firm represents employers and businesses in a wide variety of areas, including workers’ compensation, civil litigation, labor, environmental, business, estates and governmental affairs.


Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.