Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20310

KELVIN WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF TEXAS, INC.,
doing business as HCA Spring Branch Medical Center,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

December 22, 1999
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before POLITZ, GARWOOD and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case, in which
plaintiff-appellee Kelvin Washington claims that defendant-
appellant, HCA Health Services of Texas, Inc. (the Hospital),
terminated his employment because of his disability, is now before
us again on remand from the United States Supreme Court.
The Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment contending
that Washington did not have a disability as defined in the ADA, 42
U.S.C. § 12102(2), because his condition, Adult Stills Disease, was
effectively controlled by medication. The district court denied
the motion, ruling that for purposes of determining whether

Washington met the definition of disability in section 12102(2)(A)-
section 12102(2)(B) and (C) being deemed not to be in issuehis
condition should be evaluated in its unmedicated, rather than
medicated, state, and that in his unmedicated state he was disabled
within the meaning of section 12102(2)(A) or at the least presented
an issue of fact in that respect. The district court certified its
order for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on the ground that it
involved a controlling question of law as to which there was a
substantial ground for difference of opinion, namely whether for
purposes of section 12102(2)(A) Washington's condition should be
evaluated in its unmedicated or medicated state. We granted the
Hospital's petition for leave to appeal the district court's order,
and we subsequently affirmed the district court's denial of the
Hospital's motion for summary judgment, agreeing with the district
court that Washington's condition should be evaluated in its
unmedicated state for purposes of section 12102(2)(A). Washington
v. HCA Health Services of Texas, Inc., 152 F.3d 464 (5th Cir.
1998).
The Supreme Court granted the Hospital's petition for writ of
certiorari, vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded the
case to this Court "for further consideration in light of Sutton v.
United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. ____, 119 S.Ct. 1752, ___ L.Ed.2d
____ (1999), and Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S.
___, 119 S.Ct. 2133, ____L.Ed.2d ____ (1999)." HCA Health Services
of Texas, Inc. v. Washington, 119 S.Ct. 2388, 2389 (1999).
We therefore now vacate our prior ruling and judgment, and we
2

vacate the referenced order of the district court denying the
Hospital's motion for summary judgment, and we remand the case to
the district court for further consideration and proceedings in
light of and consistent with Sutton and Murphy.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3