General Overview of the Case
This case is based on Donald Knolls, an air transportation supervisor who suffered depression after being fatigued for a while. Donald requests for a disability leave and during this period, he consults his psychologist who after eight months gives him the go ahead to get back to work. Once he is back, Donald's employers, International Gateway Airport sends him to a physician whose services it had previously procured. This physician agrees that he has recovered but cannot get back to the position he previously occupied. IGA agrees with the physician's opinion and opts not to return him to his previous position. Donald then seeks legal redress as he feels fit enough to get back to his previous position.
1. Conflicting Medical Opinions
Both physicians agree that Donald is fit enough to get back to work, the difference is that the psychologist's diagnosis ends up with him agreeing to send Donald back to work. IGS's physician, on the other hand, thinks that he cannot be able to handle the stresses of his previous position as the conditions have not changed since he left. Their difference of opinion is on the level of Donald's fitness to work.
Should the advice of a medical expert count more than the opinion of a general physician?
A medical expert's opinion should not count over that of a general physician. Neither should the opinion of a general physician count over that of an expert. This is because the result of their diagnosis ought to be viewed from the context in which they were made. However, in this situation, we can agree with the general physician's opinion since he takes into consideration the fact that there has been no change in the working conditions, a factor not considered by the expert.
2. Is Donald's lawyer's charge of discrimination relevant?
It is not relevant to this situation. This is because IGA did not blatantly ignore the expert's opinion but they also considered the diagnosis of a general physician. They felt the physician's opinion carried more weight and hence agreed with what he recommended. Donald is not discriminated since both his and the expert's opinions are considered.
3. The decision I would reach if presented with this case.
I would agree with the general physician since it is a fact that the conditions remain the same as he left them before taking his leave. Furthermore, it is on a trial basis after which he can take back his old position. This is a better option than risking him breaking down at work.
Opinion on the overall case
Both parties have a valid case to argue. Donald and the expert feel he's good enough to work whereas IGA cannot afford litigation in case his condition worsens if he goes back to his old position. It is, therefore, a matter of considering the greater good.
