Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 15-1811
GAVIN CLASS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOWSON UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellant.
-----------------------------------AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY FOR SPORTS MEDICINE; MARYLAND
ATHLETIC TRAINERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL ATHLETIC TRAINERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Amici Supporting Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-01544-RDB)
Argued:
Decided:
football
Trauma Unit
at
team.
the
He
University
was
of
transported
Maryland
to
the
Medical
Shock
Center
in
He
suffered
multi-organ
failure,
requiring
liver
football.
however,
Towson
Applying
University
its
refused
Return-to-Play
to
clear
Class
Policy,
to
play
concluded
football
program
reinjury
or
that
allowing
presented
death.
The
Class
an
to
participate
unacceptable
Return-to-Play
risk
Policy
in
the
of
serious
gave
Towson
commenced
that
its
this
decision
action
to
against
exclude
him
Towson
from
University,
the
football
Disabilities
Rehabilitation Act.
Act
(ADA)
and
Section
504
of
the
his
body
temperature
and
his
susceptibility
to
heatstroke
was
qualified
to
play
intercollegiate
football
if
Towson
Following a
one-day
with
bench
trial,
the
district
court
agreed
Class,
that
Towson
University
Rehabilitation Act.
had
violated
the
ADA
and
the
appeal,
Towson
University
contends
that
the
district
the
reasons
given
herein,
we
reverse
the
district
While we recognize
determination.
Towson
Universitys
challenge
to
the
district
courts
evidentiary rulings.
I
After
Class
played
NCAA
Division
III
football
at
the
however,
on
August
12,
2013,
Class
Two days
collapsed
during
Unit
at
Class
heatstroke
the
University
resulted
in
of
Maryland
multi-organ
Medical
failure,
Center.
including
According to
receiving
intensive
medical
care
that
included
He
physicians
have
also
cautioned
that
any
lengthy
and
leaving
recovery
progressed
over
the
hospital,
process.
beginning to run.
six-month
Class
Initially
period
began
unable
from
using
to
stand,
he
walker
to
While conditioning
on his own, Class expressed his wish to rejoin the team for the
2015-16 football season.
Center
for
Sports
Kindschi
Towson
served
University
as
and
the
Injuries
MedStar
Union
Medical
the
at
head
Director
Team
of
Athletics
Physician
for
at
the
other
services
to
MedStar
Towson
physicians
were
Universitys
also
engaged
student-athletes,
to
provide
and
those
football
team.
In
the
fall
of
2014,
Dr.
Kindschi
and
the
program.
They
reached
this
conclusion
after
Dr.
liver-transplant
literature.
Dr.
participate
in
physicians;
Kindschi
no
did,
contact
and
reviewed
however,
clear
conditioning
in
medical
Class
[a]
to
cool
environment.
The August 2014 heat tolerance test was conducted by the
Korey
Stringer
Connecticut
Institute,
that
heat illness.
researches
center
issues
at
related
the
University
of
to
heatstroke
and
and
found
that,
in
an
environment
of
104F
with
40%
Class
continued
to
train,
Towson
University
again
The Institute
concluded:
At this point we suggest that you only exercise in
cool environments ranging from low to high intensity
(including football practices), and only low to
moderate
intensity in
warmer
environments.
We
strongly suggest having a second test done prior to
any intense conditioning that is done in a warm to hot
environment. This would be done in order to determine
your bodys response to high exercise intensity
coupled
with
heat exposure,
most
likely
before
returning to practice in August.
The
report
included
restrictions
and
conditions
for
Class
continued progress.
Thereafter, Dr. Kindschi again refused to clear Class for
participation in the football program because he had not shown
that he had sufficient heat tolerance to handle competitive
football practices, including scrimmages, and play outdoors in
seasonal heat.
Hutson,
team,
the
lead
concluding
collegiate
treating
that
football
protection.
professionals
She
at
physician
Class
.
also
MedStar
was
at
with
on
his
acceptable
risk
appropriate
consulted
Union
liver-transplant
with
Memorial
to
play
padding
and
other
Hospital
medical
and
with
Dr.
Kindschi noted that the test conditions for the February 2015
heat tolerance test did not adequately mimic the conditions that
Class would face playing competitive football and that Class
had
not
passed
any
test
wearing
the
specialized
padding
with
Towson
NCAA
University
requirements
applied
and
written
national
best
Return-to-Play
clearance
prior
to
active
(Emphasis added).
After Class obtained counsel, who made a formal demand for
Class to be fully reinstated in the football program, Towson
University formally responded with a letter dated May 4, 2015,
stating that, based on its Return-to-Play Policy, it was denying
Class request.
few
weeks
later,
Class
commenced
this
action
against
the
football
program
violated
the
ADA
and
the
participate
in
the
program.
In
his
complaint,
Class
body
temperature
and
susceptibility
to
heat
stroke
temperature,
walking,
standing
and
running,
when
he
He alleged that he
reasonable
accommodations
which
could
be
performed
by
claimed
that
Towson
Universitys
refusal
to
allow
him
to
11
Following
continued
the
training,
commencement
the
Korey
of
this
Stringer
action
Institute
and
Class
conducted
This was a
or
lower
that
for
Class
period
was
of
able
one
to
hour.
maintain
The
the
Institute
specified
Rather, it stated:
report
concluded,
Given
your
previous
tests
it
is
very
to maintain the gains you have made and continue to spend time
maintaining and improving your fitness.
As
detailed
further
in
the
report,
the
five
(1)
[c]ontinue
outside;
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
At the
bench
to
perform
trial
in
this
conditioning
mandated
case,
the
workouts
NCAA
heat
Institutes
Chief
test
report
could
be
accomplished
by
using
CorTemp
that
would
track
his
internal
body
temperature
and
Finally,
she continued to note that the June test was not conducted under
conditions that mimicked actual football practice and games and
in an environment reflecting Baltimores heat and humidity.
Following the one-day bench trial, the district court found
that Class had a disability within the meaning of the ADA and
the
Rehabilitation
Act
because
both
[his
status]
as
determined
that
Towson
University
had
The
discriminated
and
internal
temperature
found to be reasonable.
monitoring,
which
the
court
court
permanently
enjoined
Towson
University
from
violating
in
from
concerns
medical
the
Universitys
related
to
football
his
program
status
as
resulting
transplant
the
appeal.
By
judgment
order
entered,
dated
July
Towson
28,
University
2015,
we
filed
granted
this
Towson
August
6,
2015,
we
granted
Class
motion
to
order
an
II
Towson University contends first that the district court
erred in finding that Class, as a victim of heat stroke, is
disabled
within
the
meaning
of
the
ADA. 2
Recognizing
that
that
substantially
limits
one
or
more
major
life
Class brought this action under both the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act.
For convenience of discussion, however, we
discuss the issues only under the ADA, as the standards that we
apply are the same for both Acts.
See Halpern v. Wake Forest
Univ. Health Sciences, 669 F.3d 454, 461 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing
Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411
F.3d 474, 498 (4th Cir. 2005)).
While the Acts differ with
respect to causation, see Baird ex. rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d
462, 468-70 (4th Cir. 1999), that is not at issue here.
Under
the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff must also establish that
the defendant received federal funds, see 29 U.S.C. 794(a),
but that also is not at issue here.
15
Class
did
not
present
any
evidence
that
his
impaired
It reasons
it
does
not
substantially
limit
either
major
life
Towson
University
acknowledges
that
an
impairment
on
thermoregulation
are
not
episodic
or
in
And
See,
e.g., Knapp v. Northwestern Univ., 101 F.3d 473, 480 (7th Cir.
1996) (Playing intercollegiate basketball obviously is not in
and
of
itself
major
life
activity,
16
as
it
is
not
basic
contends
that
he
has
never
asserted
that
playing
major
life
activity,
such
as
walking,
caring
for
He reasons:
42 U.S.C. 12102(1).
Class rests
17
walking,
12102(2)(A)
standing,
In
Supreme
Courts
strict
list);
and
U.S.C.
nonexhaustive
42
the
to
lifting,
(2)
response
(providing
[and]
construction
of
this
be
disability,
see
Toyota
Motor
Mfg.,
Ky.,
Inc.
v.
Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 198-99 (2002), Congress enacted the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553.
That Act provides that the term disability must be construed
in favor of broad coverage of individuals under [the ADA], to
the
maximum
extent
12102(4)(A).
permitted
by
[the
ADA].
42
U.S.C.
on
football
thermoregulate,
dormant.
the
could
Amendments
incite
activating
Act,
Class
his
impaired
condition
that
argues
ability
is
that
to
otherwise
oneself,
as
occurred
during
heatstroke.
18
Class
2013
exertional
limitation
on
thermoregulation
can
In this case,
become
active
only
could
include
the
suffer
heatstroke.
possibility
of
If
In such conditions,
when
activation
active
under
any
were
to
condition,
impairments
that
would
disability,
the
drastically
expand
the
scope
of
inability
of
one
mountain
climber
to
need
not
address
impairment.
whether
Class
has
42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(B).
19
record
of
such
an
III
As noted, Class must also carry the burden of showing that
he
is
otherwise
qualified
to
participate
in
Towson
University]
requirements.
would
enable
[him]
to
meet
these
669 F.3d at 454, 462 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Tyndall v. Natl
Educ. Ctrs., Inc., 31 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 1994).
context
of
postsecondary
education,
disabled
In the
person
is
requisite
to
education
admission
program
or
or
participation
activity.
45
in
the
C.F.R.
U.S.
(quoting
397,
406
(1979)
original regulations).
an
explanatory
note
to
the
20
In
determining
whether
an
educational
institutions
we
accord
measure
professional judgment.
of
deference
to
the
schools
several
overwhelmingly
cases
in
extended
which
some
our
level
sister
of
circuits
deference
to
have
schools
Halpern,
program
(as
well
as
other
athletic
programs),
many others.
blanket
exclusions
are
physical
requirements
generally
are
proper
unacceptable,
to
ensure
the
legitimate
health
and
at
407));
cf.
Halpern,
669
F.3d
at
463
(holding
that
qualified
because
he
posed
significant
risk
of
Analogously,
the Supreme Court has held that employers may consider the risk
a
potential
employees
disability
poses
to
himself
in
See Chevron
with
many
other
educational
activities,
physical
The NCAA, as
conditions[,]
such
as
concussion,
cervical
Physician
final
clearance
22
authority,
spine
Granting the
policy
that
is
essential
determinations
for
the
unique
and
dynamic
policy
does
not
completely
safeguard
against
While
possible
concerns
or
Cf.
Arline,
480
trumps
U.S.
at
other
287-88
university
(explaining
that
an
otherwise
the
nature
of
the
risk
posed
by
an
individuals
we
conclude
that
Towson
Universitys
before
returning
from
injury
is
legitimately
an
dispute this.
accommodation,
to
football program.
participate
healthily
and
safely
in
the
opinion
individualized,
was
reasonably
medical evidence.
this
question,
derivatively,
deference.
reasonable
we
made,
--
i.e.,
and
based
Towson
the
Team
Physicians
Universitys
decision
whether
upon
it
was
competent
And in resolving
decision
--
--
measure
and
of
Nonetheless,
to
provide
reasonable
accommodations
and
not
of
student-athletes,
Universitys
statutory
(2)
was
obligations
in
compliance
to
provide
with
the
reasonable
to
fully
reinstate
Class
was
not
simply
pretext
for
University
reasonably
considered
Class
proposed
accommodations.
Class proposes six accommodations, which, he argues, would
satisfy
Towson
participation
qualified
Universitys
in
under
Specifically,
he
the
need
football
Towson
proposes
for
program
Universitys
the
his
use
of
healthy
and
safe
thus
render
him
and
Return-to-Play
padding
to
Policy.
protect
his
of
which
unreasonable:
are
challenged
(1)
the
condition
be
done
at
the
by
that
University
Class
as
internal
discretion
Towson
and
under
the
direct
In particular, Towson
Class
fundamental
program.
is
reduce
risk
changes
of
in
heatstroke;
the
nature
and
of
(3)
the
would
football
unreasonable
administrative
if
it
burdens,
imposes
Halpern,
undue
669
F.3d
financial
at
464
and
(quoting
of
success
of
[plaintiffs]
proposed
accommodation
nursing
student
would
take
only
academic
classes
and
no
Universitys
would
burden
contention
impose
is
not
an
well
that
undue
developed
the
requested
financial
in
the
and
record,
require
additional
the
expense
personnel.
of
training
Moreover,
them
as
and
even
matter
of
hiring
possible
context
offensive
of
football
lineman,
such
game,
as
particularly
Class.
During
for
football
starting
games,
monitor
Class
accommodations,
every
are
not
to
10
allowed
minutes
to
under
participate
his
proposed
in
football
Moreover, portions of
game clock.
Nonetheless, we
the
accommodation
would
administrative burdens.
27
impose
undue
financial
and
But
Towson
Universitys
contention
that
the
requested
A
On the issue of whether the requested accommodations would
effectively
heatstroke,
eliminate
Dr.
the
risk
Kindschi
of
concluded
second
that
catastrophic
Class
full
or
disagree
with
Dr.
Kindschis
or
to
weigh
Class
himself
that
he
suffers
from
an
of
reoccurrence
original injury.
of
heat
stroke
(Emphasis added).
28
as
result
of
his
Second,
indicate
the
that
Korey
the
heatstroke
demonstrably abated.
to
thermoregulate
tolerance
test.
Stringer
Institutes
risk
test
really
has
reports
not
been
adequately
The
second
during
and
third
low
intensity
reports
show
heat
that
he
related
sufficiently.
to
his
inability
to
thermoregulate
environments.
It
strongly
suggest[ed]
that
Class
it
was
important
that,
while
engaging
in
any
intense
all
of
the
Korey
Stringer
Institute
tests
were
not
uniform,
while
wearing
football
pads,
standard
and
football
helmet,
gear,
and
the
including
specialized
relative humidity under which the tests were conducted did not
replicate Baltimores average humidity in August -- the tests
were conducted in 40% humidity while Baltimores average August
humidity was shown to be around 70%.
Fourth,
compromised
wall,
an
Class
August
physical
ongoing
2013
condition,
requirement
heatstroke
including
to
take
left
him
thinner
medications,
with
abdominal
and
an
Relying
30
the
question
temperature
of
whether
monitoring
Dr.
Kindschis
accommodation
opinion
would
not
that
the
sufficiently
Kindschi
considered
the
proposed
accommodation
to
out
two-a-day
practices
with
one
CorTemp
sensor.
She stated that she would not feel comfortable having Towson
Universitys
without
trainers
physician
monitor
present,
Class
stating
internal
that
such
temperature
a
role
was
program,
implemented,
even
if
well
would
not
eliminate
the
administering
decision
was
the
very
monitoring
difficult
considerable thought.
31
system,
and
was
conceding
made
that
only
the
after
Dr.
Kindschis
concerns
were
supported
by
Dr.
Casas
As Dr. Casa
explained:
So just during normal, when hes flipping out of
certain drills, you know, if hes rotating around, a
manager can be sitting there where the persons
holding the water bottles; and he could check him as
people rotate through. If theres specific, you know,
designated rest breaks, then obviously someone can
just come behind him.
Dr.
Casa
also
testified
Kindschis concerns.
to
caveats
that
reiterated
As he testified:
32
Dr.
and
perhaps
most
importantly,
the
internal
The
it
practice.
was
necessary
to
remove
him
from
the
game
or
dangerous
level,
which
itself
would
be
an
individualized
no
medical
disagree
purporting
with
to
support
her
is
simply
judgment,
support
his
untenable.
even
return,
33
his
at
While
experts
least
to
he
may
testimony
football
practice,
And
no
was
one
conducted
filled
disputed
against
with
that
the
serious
the
caveats
and
monitoring
continuous
and
precautions.
effort
would
be
heightened
risk
of
serious
injury
from
it
--
including
Class
himself.
noted,
the
standard
for
assessing
Dr.
Kindschis
Rather,
the
standard
is
whether
her
judgment
was
are
particularly
ineffectiveness
ill-equipped
of
proposed
evaluate
the
accommodations
in
to
deference
to
qualifications).
schools
judgment
regarding
admissions
F.3d
463
(noting
that
courts
are
In doing
See Halpern,
at
comparative
regarding
substitute
participation
its
judgment
in
athletics
for
that
of
where
the
court
schools
may
team
the
bottom,
we
despite
Centers
agree
potentially
for
Disease
with
the
conflicting
Control
Seventh
and
recommendations
Prevention).
Circuits
articulation
35
in
As the Knapp
court stated:
At
B
While it is sufficient in evaluating the reasonableness of
a
proposed
University
accommodation
also
to
contends
rely
that
on
the
only
one
factor,
temperature
Towson
monitoring
and
proposed
We agree.
accommodations
would
require
Towson
should
be
done
at
the
discretion
and
direct
(Emphasis added).
it
such
would
not
be
possible
to
implement
an
Yet
accommodation
without upending the critical role of the Team Physician and her
subordinates and impinging on the ongoing professional medical
discretion
she
Physicians
is
role
retained
is
an
to
exercise.
essential
Because
aspect
of
the
the
Team
football
clearance
requirement,
fundamental
Class
requirement
proposed
alteration
in
is
an
essential
modification
the
nature
of
would
the
eligibility
constitute
program.
See
Halpern, 669 F.3d at 464 (citing PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532
36
U.S.
661,
682-83
(2001)
(examining
rules
purpose
and
these
and,
reasons,
we
find
derivatively,
Towson
that
the
Team
Universitys
Physicians
judgment
to
IV
Gavin Class is a courageous man of substantial character,
which is much to be admired.
to
validate
his
determination
and
perseverance
to
return
to
While
we
hold
that
Towson
University
acted
Class
has
accomplishments.
achieved
substantial
victory
with
his
37
Class
The
Team
too
Physicians
medical
determination
that
Class
faced
agree
Kindschis
that
the
opinion
district
to
court
determine
should
if
it
have
was
reviewed
We
Dr.
individualized,
In
reasonableness
of
the
universitys
decisionnot
the
in part.
I.
At
the
heart
of
this
case
is
the
appropriate
level
of
benefits
of
public entity.
the
the
services,
programs,
42 U.S.C. 12132.
Rehabilitation
Act
imposes
or
activities
of
the
prohibition
on
any
29
U.S.C. 794(a). 1
Under the ADA, a disabled person is otherwise qualified to
participate
in
disability
who,
rules,
policies,
program
with
or
or
if
he
is
without
practices,
an
individual
reasonable
.
with
modifications
meets
the
a
to
essential
eligibility
program.
requirements
for
participation
in
that
(stating
nearly
identical
standard
applicable
to
Sys.
Corp.,
50
F.3d
1261,
1265
Cir.
1995)
([A]n
I therefore disagree
before
returning
essential
eligibility
from
injury
requirement.
is
Ante,
legitimately
at
23.
It
an
is
entity
accused
of
discrimination
to
the
status
of
an
essential
eligibility
requirementClasss
ability
to
play
determination
itself
was
not
the
essential
eligibility
requirement. 3
With the appropriate essential eligibility requirement in
mind, I turn to the standard that the district court should have
applied in evaluating Dr. Kindschis opinion.
My review of the
in
contrast
to
the
majority
opinions
more
subjective approach.
The majority opinion relies heavily on Halpern, in which a
student
with
anxiety
disorder
dismiss
him
Attention
challenged
from
the
unprofessional behavior.
this
Court
Deficit
afforded
his
Hyperactivity
school
medical
schools
for
repeatedly
Disorder
respect
to
and
an
decision
to
exhibiting
In that case,
the
schools
Id. at 463.
In
doing so, we noted that in the due process context, the Supreme
3
Court
has
held
professional
that
judgment
court
should
defer
regarding
students
professional qualifications.
to
schools
academic
or
the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985), and Bd.
of Curators of the Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 92
(1978)).
This
particularly
deference
ill-equipped
was
to
warranted
evaluate
because
academic
courts
are
performance.
Id. at 463 (quoting Davis v. Univ. of N.C., 263 F.3d 95, 102
(4th Cir. 2001)); see also Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 92.
The majority opinion cited Halpern throughout its opinion,
without recognizing that Halpern is readily distinguishable from
this
case.
Halpern
involved
determination
of
academic
physical
determined
that
through
necessarily
discretion.
at 90.
to
qualifications.
science,
involve
Academic
but
some
eligibility
through
level
individual
of
is
not
judgments
subjectivity
and
the
procedural
tools
of
judicial
or
administrative
In contrast,
looks
to
the
medical
facts
42
supporting
the
entitys
decision.
Arline,
whether
for
public
instance,
school
the
Supreme
violated
Court
Section
considered
504
of
the
it
discharged
tuberculosis.
teacher
who
suffered
from
at
288
essential
(alteration
to
handicapped
the
in
original).
Rehabilitation
individuals
from
Congress
years
passed
after
the
the
ADA,
Acts
deprivations
Such
an
goal
based
inquiry
is
of
protecting
on
prejudice,
Id. at 287.
Supreme
which
Court
expressly
decided
provides
Arline,
that
an
individuals
in
the
workplace.
Americans
with
327,
334
(1990)
(codified
43
as
amended
at
42
U.S.C.
12113(b)).
provisions
in
other
Rehabilitation Act.
sections
of
the
ADA
and
in
the
of
individual
with
disability
under
the
Rehabilitation Act).
In a case arising out of the direct threat provision of
Title III of the ADA, Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), a
dentist refused to provide his standard services to a patient
because she was infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.
Id. at 62829.
Supreme
Court
held
that
it
should
assess
Id. at 648.
the
objective
44
In
such
cases,
the
employer
See 29 C.F.R.
must
perform
an
v.
Echazabal,
standard).
Several
determinations
for
536
U.S.
employment
objective
86
cases
(2002)
have
(applying
reviewed
reasonableness,
just
this
medical
as
the
Grocery Prods. Co., 436 F.3d 468, 484 (5th Cir. 2006); Gillen v.
Fallon
Ambulance
Serv.,
Inc.,
283
F.3d
11,
3132
(1st
Cir.
the
Seventh
Circuit
considered
whether
In
Northwestern
Id. at 476.
45
medical
determinations
of
this
sort
are
best
left
to
team
this
Id. at 484.
nature,
exclusion
the
or
reasonably
medical evidence.
need
to
be
conclusion.
courts
place
disqualification
individualized,
Notably,
made,
is
of
to
ensure
an
and
that
individual
based
upon
the
was
competent
Id. at 485.
Northwestern
Universitys
the
right
decision
Id.
Indeed,
determination
or
physicians
the
only
might
did
not
reasonable
reasonably
reach
Id.
id.
at
486,
with
an
eye
to
the
Arline
factors
in
university
athletics.
The
majority
opinion
Knapp was decided before Bragdon and thus did not rely
upon Bragdons objective reasonableness language.
46
Ante, at 25.
relieve
objectively
Towson
of
liability
reasonable.
524
if
U.S.
at
its
decision
64950.
was
not
Following
the
should
take
rigorous
look
at
the
medical
basis
and
medical
knowledge.
See
Echazabal,
536
U.S.
at
86;
disabilities
discrimination,
policies.);
continually
including
Echazabal,
paternalism
in
Paternalism
is
its
.
536
sights
particularly
encounter
.
U.S.
various
overprotective
at
85
forms
of
rules
and
(Congress
had
when
it
passed
likely
to
emerge
the
in
ADA.).
questions
While
concerns.
reasonable,
individualized,
based
on
competent
medical
Such a review
Deference
to
respect
the
universitys
judgment
if
it
is
failed
to
apply
the
correct
standard.
Instead
of
to be more persuasive.
1544,
2015
WL
4423501,
at
*8
(D.
Md.
July
17,
2015).
In
The
majority
opinion
chose
to
apply
the
deferential
I, on the
(1974); see also Humphrey v. Humphrey, 434 F.3d 243, 247 (4th
Cir. 2006).
Pullman-Standard
v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 292 (1982); see also Humphrey, 434 F.3d
at 248 (providing as an example that an appellate court may
resolve
the
case
without
inevitably
produce
the
standard).
When
this
remanding
same
case
is
if
outcome
viewed
the
under
in
its
evidence
the
would
correct
entirety,
the
49
In
holding
aspects
of
otherwise,
the
the
factual
majority
opinion
record.
bends
Two
key
particular
has
results
as
The
test
not
majority
reports
been
support
indicate
demonstrably
for
opinion
Dr.
concludes
that
the
abated
Kindschis
and
that
the
heatstroke
risk
cites
decision
not
in
Dr.
Casa,
the
heatstroke,
head
of
the
Institute
looked
at
these
same
the
to
test
allow
Ante, at 29.
and
test
leading
results
and
J.A.
without
question
it
was
reasonably
safe
for
Class
to
J.A. 297.
J.A. 302.
of
collegiate
lineman
during
preseason
practice,
the
If Class wished
J.A. 600.
J.A. 601.
Class
did
not
complete
sixty
J.A. 601.
minutes
of
The only
exercise
was
Nonetheless,
states
that
Class
was
able
to
perform
for
only
Ante, at 29.
50
This
to
no
literature
supporting
her
medical
Dr. Kindschi
conclusions,
including her claim that a player could still overheat while the
51
internal
in
temperature
five
to
ten
could
minute
only
go
period,
up
and
by
about
Class
one
could
be
J.A. 311.
Dr. Casa
of
103
degrees
Fahrenheit,
medical
discount
evidence
the
of
noted
that
this
supporting
conclusion
but
Dr.
her
Casa,
decision
a
to
leading
completely
heat-illness
expert.
The majority opinion also notes that dozens of athletes
have died from heatstroke, and cites this fact as support for
Dr. Kindschis conclusion that Class would not be safe.
at 34.
has
Ante,
ever
suffered
heatstroke
while
being
monitored
with
the
practice.
supporting
her
J.A.
310.
opinion,
the
Without
record
any
does
medical
not
evidence
compel
the
underscore
that
the
record
Perhaps it was.
is
less
clear
than
I
the
Therefore,
court
decision
was
for
consideration
individualized,
of
whether
objectively
Dr.
Kindschis
reasonable,
and
to
be
admired.
Ante,
at
37.
And
agree
with
the
reasonableness
opinion
makes
of
her
medical
opinion.
And,
its
own
factual
findings
instead
the
of
For those
53
proud
to
tell
his
story.
Ante,
at
37.
54
Accordingly,