Altman v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp: Second Circuit Determines Recovering Alcoholic Not To Be a "Qualified Individual" Under ADA Title I

In Altman v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., the district court addressed alleged violations of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held that the plaintiff, a recovering alcoholic, was disabled, but that he was not a "qualified individual" as defined by the ADA.

Altman was the Chief of Internal Medicine at Metropolitan Hospital Center. In 1986, Altman was treated for alcoholism and prescription drug addiction. In 1992, Altman was seen treating patients while he was visibly drunk. Stone, the Medical Director of the hospital, advised Altman to undergo treatment. After a month of in-patient treatment at a rehabilitation clinic, Altman entered a state sponsored treatment program. Upon his return to the hospital, Altman was not reinstated as Chief of Internal Medicine, but was offered an attending physician position. Altman sued the hospital and several individual defendants claiming that they violated the ADA. Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The district court first addressed the claims against the individual defendants and held that individuals may not be held personally liable for damages under the ADA. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in their favor.

The district court then reviewd the claims against the hospitalnoted that to recover under the ADA, Altman had to prove: (1) that he had a disability; (2) that he was otherwise qualified; and (3) that he was discriminated against solely on the basis of the disability. The defendant conceded that Altman had a disability and that he was not reinstated due to this disability., and justified its decision on the basis that Altman was not qualified to resume his duties as Chief of Internal Medicine.

The district court supported the hospital's contention that Altman was not qualified. The court observed that a "disabled individual is not otherwise qualified for a particular employment position if he poses a 'direct threat' to the health or safety of others which cannot be eliminated by a reasonable accommodation." The court stated that a "direct threat" is defined as a "significant risk of substantial harm." In analyzing "significant risk," the court stated that only three months prior to his return to work, Altman had been visibly drunk on the job and treating patients. While committing himself for treatment and participating in ongoing recovery programs provided hope for the future, his superiors had to consider the public's safety if an undetected relapse occurred. The court noted that it would be difficult to ignore the potential severity of the harm which could result if Altman relapsed. Further, the court noted the responsibilities of the position: (1) treating patients; (2) conducting daily meetings to discuss treatment of new and old patients; (3) making rounds with attending physicians; (4) making final decisions as to the treatment of patients when there is uncertainty among the doctors; and (5) making determinations in emergency situations. The court noted that in light of Altman's prior relapse, the possibility of relapse was not "insignificant." The court concluded that Altman was not qualified for the position and that he was not protected under the ADA. Thus, the court granted the defendants summary judgment.

Altman v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 903 F. Supp. 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff'd 100 F.3d 1054 (2d Cir. 1996).

Notice: The information on this page may not be current. The archive is a collection of content previously published on one or more NAR web properties. Archive pages are not updated and may no longer be accurate. Users must independently verify the accuracy and currency of the information found here. The National Association of REALTORS® disclaims all liability for any loss or injury resulting from the use of the information or data found on this page.

Advertisement