In the first appeals court ruling to deal with the issue, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., has ruled that a sufficiently severe temporary impairment may be considered a disability under federal law and require accommodation by an employer.

Carl R. Summers began working as a senior analyst for government contractor Altarum Institute Corp. in Alexandria, Va., in July 2011. The job required him to travel to the Maryland offices of Alarum's client, the Arlington, Va.-based Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, according to the ruling in Carl R. Summers v. Altarum Institute Corp..

On Oct. 17, 2011, on his way to work, Mr. Summers fell while exiting a commuter train and severely injured both legs, including fracturing his left leg and right ankle, which required subsequent surgeries, according to the ruling.

Doctors forbade Mr. Summers from putting any weight on his left leg for six weeks and said he would not be able to walk normally for at least seven months.

Although he requested an accommodation, Altarum terminated Mr. Summers on Dec. 1, 2011, according to the ruling.

Mr. Summers filed suit in federal court in Alexandria, accusing Altarum with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the case, holding that a temporary condition of even up to a year in length was not covered by the ADA.

However, in its unanimous ruling Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit disagreed. Congress broadened the definition of “disability” by enacting the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, said the ruling.

%%BREAK%%

The law provides that the definition of disability “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals … to the maximum extent permitted by (its) terms,” the court ruled.

Subsequent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations also provide that impairments lasting fewer than six months can be considered a disability, according to the ruling.

“We are the first appellate court to apply the amendment's expanded definition of 'disability. Fortunately, the absence of appellate precedent presents no difficulty in this case: Summers has unquestionably alleged a 'disability' under the (ADA Amendments Act) sufficiently plausible” to survive a motion to dismiss, the appeals court ruled.

“Summers alleges that his accident left him unable to walk for seven months and that without surgery, pain medication and physical therapy, he 'likely' would have been unable to work for far longer.

“The text and purpose of the (ADA Amendments Act) and its implementing regulations make clear that such an impairment can constitute a disability,” the court ruled in overturning the lower court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings.