02-4503 Carol A. Burnett v. Clearfield Hospital

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
02-4503
____________
CAROL A. BURNETT,
Appellant
v.
CLEARFIELD HOSPITAL
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________
(D.C. Civ. No. 00-cv-00166J)
District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 34.1(a)
October 23, 2003
Before: ALITO, FUENTES, and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 22, 2003)
___________________
OPINION
____________________

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Because we write for the benefit of the parties, the background of the case is not
set out.
Burnett contends that the summary judgment record is sufficient to show that the
Hospital regarded her as having a disability. We do not agree. In order to show that the
Hospital regarded Burnett as substantially limited with respect to the major life activity of
lifting, Burnett would have to show that the Hospital regarded her as unable to lift 10
pounds, Marinelli v. City of Erie, 216 F.3d 354, 364 (3d Cir. 2000), and there is no
evidence to that effect. On the contrary, the evidence merely shows that the Hospital
regarded her as unable to meet the 50-pound lifting requirement that it set for nursing
positions.
The record is also insufficient to show that the Hospital regarded her as
substantially limited in the major life activity of working. The record shows no more than
that the Hospital regarded her as unable to meet its own requirements for nursing
positions. Burnett has not identified any evidence in the record that other hospitals had
similar requirements or that the Hospital believed that other hospitals and other employers
of nurses had such a job requirement.
The testimony of Burnett’s vocational expert does not show that she was
substantially limited in the major life activity of working. The expert answered in the
affirmative when asked whether Burnett would be disqualified from a broad range of jobs

-- 2 of 5 --

3
if she could not work full time in “lifting positions” and if the only full-time jobs she
could perform were “non-lifting” jobs. This testimony is insufficient because, among
other things, it does not take into account Burnett’s specific lifting restriction, i.e.,
between 20 and 40 pounds.
Finally, the remark that Burnett attributes to Hudson is insufficient. Burnett claims
that Hudson “told” her to apply for Social Security disability benefits. Hudson, on the
other hand, says Burnett asked if she would qualify for such benefits and that Hudson
replied that she did not know but would investigate if Burnett wished. We must of course
view the record in the light most favorable to Burnett, but even when we do so, the record
is inadequate. Hudson’s statement that Burnett asked whether she was qualified is not
controverted; nor is there any evidence that Hudson knew the requirements for receiving
disability benefits. Under these circumstances, “telling” Burnett to apply does not
reasonably show more than that Hudson thought that if Burnett wished to pursue such
benefits, she should apply. Hudson’s statement cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean
that Hudson felt that Burnett was in fact qualified for such benefits.
Burnett suggests that the Hospital discharged her in retaliation for filing worker’s
compensation claims. However, the only legal claims asserted in this appeal concern
discrimination based on disability, and therefore no issue regarding worker’s
compensation is before us.
We heard argument on this appeal, and we have carefully considered all of

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Burnett’s arguments. We find no ground for reversal.
For these reasons, the order of the District Court is affirmed.

-- 4 of 5 --

-- 5 of 5 --