Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE BENNETT, Chief Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION..1059 A. Procedural Background...1059 B. Disputed And Undisputed Facts ...1060 II.SIOUX VALLEY’S MOTION TO DISMISS.1061 III.PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1063 A. Standards For Summary Judgment .1064 1. Requirements of Rule 56.1064 2. The parties’burdens .1066 3. Summary judgment in employment discrimination cases.1065 B. Actual Disability Claims.1066 1. Analytical framework in general .1066 2. Barnes’s Actual disability claim: 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A).1068 a. Impairment.1068 b. Substantial limitations of major life activities.1069 i. Major life activities.1070 ii. Substantially limited.1070 iii. Import of Barnes’s “flare-ups.” .1074 iv. Working.1078 c. Qualified individual.1080 d. Duty to accommodate.1083 e. Adverse employment action .1089 C. “Record of Disability” Claims.1091 D. “Reyarded As” Claims..1091 IV. SIOUX VALLEY’S MOTION TO STRIKE.1093 V. CONCLUSION.1095 I. INTRODUCTION Before the court in this employment discrimination case brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Iowa Civil Rights Act are multiple motions filed by both the plaintiff, Ruthann Barnes (“Barnes”), and by the defendants, Northwest Iowa Health Center and Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System (referred to collectively as “Sioux Valley”). Specifically, on September 5, 2002, the defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss Defendant Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System, Or, Alternatively, Motion For Substitution Of Named Defendant (Doc. No. 21), as well as a Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17). On the same day, the plaintiff filed a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 27). A. Procedural Background Barnes filed this employment discrimination case on June 8, 2001. At this time, she also filed a jury demand, and a jury trial is scheduled in this case for January 27, 2003. The named defendants are Northwest Iowa Health Center and Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System. The plaintiff alleges disability discrimination, and, as such, the action is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), Iowa Code ch. 216. The court’s exercise of jurisdiction over this action is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (providing for original jurisdiction in the federal district courts) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims). In her complaint, Barnes sets forth several causes of actions — the first three counts assert violations of the ADA, and the fourth asserts a violation of the ICRA. Count I alleges discrimination based on her actual disability; Count II alleges discrimination based on a record of disability; Count III alleges discrimination because of a perceived disability; and Count IV asserts disability discrimination in violation of the ICRA. As noted above, Barnes and Sioux Valley filed cross-motions for summary judgment on September 5, 2002. In her Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, Barnes contends that she has established a prima facie case on her failure-to-accommodate claims because of (1) an actual disability; (2) a record of disability; and (3) a perceived disability. In Sioux Valley’s motion, it contends it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (1) Barnes is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) Barnes does not have a record of disability; (3) Sioux Valley did not perceive Barnes as disabled; and (4) Barnes was not qualified to perform the essential functions of the job for which she applied. Also on September 5, 2002, Sioux Valley filed a motion to dismiss Sioux Valley Hospital & Health System. In the Motion To Dismiss, the defendants argue, inter alia, that Sioux Valley Health Hospitals & Health System is not a proper defendant to this litigation because Sioux Valley 'Health Hospitals & Health System was not Barnes’s potential employer and, in the alternative, because this court lacks personal jurisdiction over that entity. The court will address this argument in turn. Lastly, on October 22, 2002, Sioux Valley filed a motion to strike portions of Barnes’s resistance papers, asserting they do not comply with the Federal and Local Rules, are not based on personal knowledge, and are inconsistent with prior testimony. The court heard oral arguments on the parties’ respective motions on November 8, 2002. In these arguments, the plaintiff was represented by Margaret M. Prahl of Heidman, Redmond, Fredregill, Patterson, Plaza & Dykstra LLP, Sioux City, Iowa. The defendants were represented by Che-ryle Wiedmeier Gering of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz, & Smith, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. B. Disputed And Undisputed Facts Barnes is a Licensed Practical Nurse (“LPN”), and she also suffers from rheumatoid arthritis. Barnes began her employ with Sioux Valley in 1988 as an LPN and, later, as a phlebotomist and laboratory assistant. When she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in 1992, she left her position and collected Social Security Disability benefits through April of 2002. In August of 2000, Barnes had had her arthritis under control with medication for over a year, and she felt ready to re-enter the workforce. Responding to a newspaper vacancy announcement, Barnes applied for an LPN position with Oak Park Care Center, which is a long-term residential care facility (also known as a nursing home) operated by defendant Northwest Community Health System. Barnes completed an application for employment on August 10, 2000. Shortly after completing the application, Barnes interviewed with Judy Kuiper, the Director of Nursing at Oak Park. At the conclusion of this interview, Oak Park extended an offer of employment to Barnes. Sioux Valley contends the offer was contingent upon successful completion of a health assessment and a criminal background check, as well as production of a current LPN license. Barnes, however, argues that the offer was unqualified and that Sioux Valley retracted its offer, or “un-hired” her, after her health assessment, which will be discussed below, and without considering any reasonable accommodations. In any event, the parties agree that, but for the results of Barnes’s health assessment, she would have been employed as an LPN at Oak Park. After extending an offer, Cindy Woods, the assistant director of nursing, scheduled Barnes’s employment orientation and made arrangements for Barnes to undergo a health assessment the following day with Cindy Freeman, an occupational health nurse. As part of this medical evaluation, Barnes filled out a health assessment form. On this form, she indicated she suffered from “rheumatoid arthritis controlled by medication” and that she had recently undergone surgery on her foot. In fact, the most recent of six foot surgeries took place only two weeks before she completed the health assessment form on August 16, 2000. According to the defendants, Freeman placed Barnes on “medical hold” because of her recent surgery and diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Being on medical hold meant that Barnes could not begin employment until Sioux Valley obtained additional data and made a determination that Barnes was physically capable of performing the duties associated with the LPN position. Freeman referred Barnes to Dr. David Hewitt, the company physician, for further evaluation and sought medical information and releases from Barnes’s treating physician, Dr. David Robison, her orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Philip Deffer, and Dr. Wick. Both doctors Deffer and Robison released Barnes to work and provided those unconditional releases to Dr. Hewitt on Barnes’s behalf. Specifically, on August 17, 2000, Dr. Deffer advised that Barnes “May return to work with no restrictions.” [Pf.’s App., at 23]. Similarly, on August 21, 2000, Dr. Robison responded, stating that Barnes “is now able to return to work and perform duty as charge nurse.” [Pf.’s App., at 22], Dr. Hewitt performed his evaluation of Barnes on September 1, 2000. In addition, also on September 1, 2000, Barnes underwent a musculoskeletal exam performed by a physical therapist. Dr. Hewitt and the physical therapists are employed by Sioux Valley Business Health Services, which is part of the Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System. Prior to the health assessment, Sioux Valley provided Dr. Hewitt with a job description outlining the physical requirements for the LPN position: She [Barnes] should be able to bend, stoop, squat, reach above shoulder level, kneel, balance, or twist occasionally (0-33%). She may occasionally be required to carry 25-50 lbs. with frequent carrying of 10 lbs:, frequent lifting of 10-50 lbs. with occasional lifting of 75 to greater than 100 lbs; frequent push/pull of 10-35 lbs. with occasional push/pull of 50-100 lbs. [Deft’s App., at 118]. Dr. Hewitt performed a variety of tests and concluded that, while “a return to work in some fashion is ultimately in the patient’s best interest,” “the physical demands of an LPN position as described in the job description may be in excess of what [Barnes] is physically capable of at this point.” [Deft.’s App., at 119]. Specifically, Dr. Hewitt noted the following: [I]t is unlikely that [Barnes] will be able to perform lifting of more than 25-30 lbs. on more than an occasional basis. Also due to her recent surgery, it is unlikely she would be able to tolerate prolonged standing or walking. She would otherwise be considered fit for duty with recommended restrictions of no lifting greater than approximately 25 lbs. and no prolonged standing or walking. ... It was noted that it would be the employer’s final decision as to whether they would be able to accommodate these restrictions. [Deft’s App., at 119]. Mary Ruyter, the former Director of Nursing at Oak Park, normally makes all hiring decisions. However, when Oak Park extended an offer of employment to Barnes, Ruyter was on vacation. When she returned from vacation, Freeman presented her with the results from her occupational health assessment and Dr. Hewitt’s physical evaluation. Without consulting Barnes, or doctors Hewitt, Deffer, or Robison, Ruyter made the unilateral determination based on Dr. Hewitt’s report that Barnes’s restrictions affected the essential functions of the LPN position and that they could not reasonably be accommodated. Ruyter completed an “Essential Function Qualification Evaluation” and indicated on the form that accommodation of Barnes’s restrictions would require the hiring of another individual to perform the tasks Barnes’s restrictions precluded her from doing. Ruyter then instructed Woods to contact Barnes and to inform her that Sioux Valley was retracting its offer of employment. Woods met with Barnes on September 21, 2000, reviewed the Essential Function Qualification Evaluation form with Barnes, which Ruyter had already completed prior to the meeting, and informed her that Sioux Valley could not accommodate her in an LPN position at Oak Park. II. SIOUX VALLEY’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants moved to dismiss Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System out of this lawsuit (1) because Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System is not a proper party defendant and/or (2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System. In the alternative, the defendants moved to substitute Sioux Valley Regional Health Services d/b/a Northwest Iowa Health Center, which is the properly named defendant, for Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System. Barnes did not resist this motion. Barnes conceded to the substitution of Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System conditioned on the grounds that Sioux Valley Regional Health Services did not contest personal jurisdiction and that the substitution relates back to the filing of the original complaint. The ADA and the ICRA impose liability on employers. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A); Iowa Code § 216.2(7). Thus, in order to prevail on her claims, Barnes must demonstrate that each defendant was her “employer.” See Loeckle v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 59 F.Supp.2d 838, 846 (N.D.Iowa 1999) (dismissing one of named defendants for lack of employee-employer relationship) (citing Deal v. State Farm County Mut. Ins. Co., 5 F.3d 117, 118 (5th Cir.1993) (affirming district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ Title VII and ADEA claims for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiff failed to establish that defendants were her employers)), aff'd 210 F.3d 379 (8th Cir.2000). Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System asserts that it was not Barnes’s employer or potential employer; therefore, it argues that it should be dismissed from this lawsuit, Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System is a South Dakota corporation and has not obtained a certificate of authority to do business in Iowa. It is also the parent corporation of Sioux Valley Regional Health Services. Sioux Valley Regional Health Services, not Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System, operates Northwest Iowa Health Center, which, in turn, operates Oak Park Care Center in Sheldon, Iowa — the nursing home from which Barnes sought employment. The defendants concede that Sioux Valley Regional Health Services is a proper defendant to this action. Here, Sioux Valley Regional Health Services had notice of the institution of Barnes’s action. Further, Sioux Valley Regional Health Services knew that, but for a mistake concerning the identity, or corporate structure, of the proper party, Barnes would have brought the action against Sioux Valley Regional Health Services, not Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System. Therefore, the court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System from this lawsuit and to substitute Sioux Valley Regional Health Services as the proper party defendant. The court, furthermore, commends Sioux Valley Regional Health Services’s forthright apprisal of the defect in the proper party defendant and its motion to substitute it as the proper party defendant. And finally, because the court is granting the defendants’ motion and dismissing Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System on the ground that it is not a proper party defendant, the court need not address whether the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over that entity. Thus, to the extent the defendants’ motion to dismiss was based on the lack of personal jurisdiction over Sioux Valley Hospitals & Health System, the motion is denied as moot. III. PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiffs Motion For Partial Summary Judgment solely seeks a determination that the plaintiff has established her prima facie case of disability discrimination on her failure-to-accommodate claims. In her brief, Barnes argues that she has established her failure-to-accommodate claims on her actual and record of claims (Counts I and II) and identified the defendants’ retraction of their employment offer as the adverse employment action. However, in her brief, Barnes did not address her “regarded as” claim, nor did she address whether requiring her to undergo a second physical examination was discriminatory, as she plead in her complaint. Further, while Barnes does allege in her complaint that Sioux Valley’s “unhiring” of her because of its perception of a disability was discriminatory, she did not brief the issue in support of her summary judgment motion. Thus, the only claims properly before the court on the plaintiffs Partial Motion For Summary Judgment are Count I and a portion of Count II — whether Sioux Valley failed to accommodate Barnes in violation of the ADA because of an actual or record of disability when it rescinded its offer of employment. Because this inquiry is inextricably linked to the defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, in which the defendants contend that Barnes was not actually disabled, did not have a record of disability, was not regarded as disabled, and was not qualified for the LPN position, the court will largely not distinguish between the parties’ discrete motions in its analysis of Barnes’s claims. Furthermore, when considering Barnes’s disability claims, the court will generally make no distinction between claims based on federal law and comparable claims based on state law. This is appropriate because the elements of liability under the ADA and the ICRA are the same for federal and state claims. See Montgomery v. John Deere & Co., 169 F.3d 556, 558 n. 3 (8th Cir.1999) (discrimination claims under ICRA are analyzed in same manner as their federal law counterparts); Fuller v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 576 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Iowa 1998) (recognizing that Chapter 216’s prohibition on disability discrimination is the state-law “counterpart” to the ADA, and that, “[i]n considering a disability discrimination claim brought under Iowa Code chapter 216, we look to the ADA and cases interpreting its language. We also consider the underlying federal regulations established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter ‘EEOC’), the agency responsible for enforcing the ADA.”) (internal citations omitted). Federal law, however, is not controlling. Iowa courts look simply to the analytical framework utilized by the federal courts in assessing federal law, and federal courts should not substitute the language of the federal statutes for the clear words of the ICRA. Hulme v. Barrett, 449 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Iowa 1989); accord Board of Supervisors of Buchanan County v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 N.W.2d 252, 256 (Iowa 1998) (“In deciding gender discrimination disputes, we adhere to the Title VII analytical framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824-25, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 677-79 (1973). See Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc. v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 453 N.W.2d 512, 516 (Iowa 1990).”). A. Standards For Summary Judgment This court has considered in some detail the standards applicable to motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a number of prior decisions. See, e.g., Swanson v. Van Otterloo, 993 F.Supp. 1224, 1230-31 (N.D.Iowa 1998); Dirks v. J.C. Robinson Seed Co., 980 F.Supp. 1303, 1305-07 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Laird v. Stilwill, 969 F.Supp. 1167, 1172-74 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Rural Water Sys. # 1 v. City of Sioux Ctr., 967 F.Supp. 1483, 1499-1501 (N.D.Iowa 1997), aff'd in pertinent part, 202 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 820, 121 S.Ct. 61, 148 L.Ed.2d 28 (2000); Tralon Corp. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 966 F.Supp. 812, 817-18 (N.D.Iowa 1997), aff'd, 205 F.3d 1347, 2000 WL 84400 (8th Cir.2000) (Table op.); Security State Bank v. Firstar Bank Milwaukee, N.A., 965 F.Supp. 1237, 1239-40 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 963 F.Supp. 805 (N.D.Iowa 1997). The essentials of these standards for present purposes are as follows. I. Requirements of Rule 56 Rule 56 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party against whom a claim ... is asserted ... may, at any time, move for summary judgment in the party’s favor as to all or any part thereof.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). Further, The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (emphasis added). Applying these standards, the trial judge’s function at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but rather is to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Quick v. Donaldson Co., 90 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (8th Cir.1996); Johnson v. Enron Corp., 906 F.2d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir.1990). An issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record. Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394 (8th Cir.1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)); accord Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist., 963 F.Supp. 805, 814 n. 3 (N.D.Iowa 1997) (citing Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348). As to whether a factual dispute is “material,” the Supreme Court has explained, “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); accord Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir.1999). 2. The parties’ burdens Procedurally, the moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying the portions of the record showing a “lack of a genuine issue.” Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)); see also Rose-Maston v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir.1998). When this burden is met, the party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Instead, the opposing party is required to go beyond the pleadings and, by either affidavits or the “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,” designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Rabushka ex. rel. United States v. Crane Co., 122 F.3d 559, 562 (8th Cir.1997). If the opposing party fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim for which that party has the burden of proof, then the movant is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548; In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prod. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d 1484, 1492 (8th Cir.1997). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348; Quick, 90 F.3d at 1377. 3. Summary judgment in employment discrimination cases Because this is an employment discrimination case, it is well to remember that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has cautioned that “summary judgment should seldom be used in employment-discrimination cases.” Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Johnson v. Minnesota Historical Soc’y, 931 F.2d 1239, 1244 (8th Cir.1991); Hillebrand v. M-Tron Indus., Inc., 827 F.2d 363, 364 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 782, 102 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989)); see also Snow v. Ridgeview Medical Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Crawford); Helfter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 115 F.3d 613, 615 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting Crawford); Chock v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 113 F.3d 861, 862 (8th Cir.1997) (“We must also keep in mind, as our court has previously cautioned, that summary judgment should be used sparingly in employment discrimination cases,” citing Crawford); Smith v. St. Louis Univ., 109 F.3d 1261, 1264 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting Crawford); Hardin v. Hussmann Corp., 45 F.3d 262, 264 (8th Cir.1995) (“[Summary judgments should only be used sparingly in employment discrimination cases.”) (citing Haglof v. Northwest Rehabilitation, Inc., 910 F.2d 492, 495 (8th Cir.1990); and Hillebrand, 827 F.2d at 364). Summary judgment is appropriate in employment discrimination cases only in “those rare instances where there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion.” Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244; see also Webb v. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 51 F.3d 147, 148 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244); Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341 (quoting Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244). To put it another way, “[b]ecause discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence, summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the nonmovant.” Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341; accord Snow, 128 F.3d at 1205 (“Because discrimination cases often turn on inferences rather than on direct evidence, we are particularly deferential to the nonmov-ant.”) (citing Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341); Webb v. Garelick Mfg. Co., 94 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341); Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 385 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341); Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244. Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also observed that “[although summary judgment should be used sparingly in the context of employment discrimination cases, Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994), the plaintiffs evidence must go beyond the establishment of a prima facie case to support a reasonable inference regarding the alleged illicit reason for the defendant’s action.” Landon v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 620, 624 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Reich v. Hoy Shoe Co., 32 F.3d 361, 365 (8th Cir.1994)); accord Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir.) (observing that the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas must be used to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 818, 120 S.Ct. 59, 145 L.Ed.2d 51 (1999). More recently, in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), the Supreme Court reiterated that “ ‘[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.’ ” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (quoting Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). Thus, what the plaintiffs evidence must show, to avoid summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law, is “ T, that the stated reasons were not the real reasons for [the plaintiffs] discharge; and 2, that age [or race, or sex, or other prohibited] discrimination was the real reason for [the plaintiffs] discharge.” Id. at 153, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (quoting the district court’s jury instructions as properly stating the law). The Supreme Court clarified in Reeves that, to meet this burden, “a plaintiffs prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.” Id. at 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097. The court will apply these standards to the parties’ motions for summary judgment, addressing each of the disputed issues in turn. B. Actual Disability Claims 1. Analytical framework in general The ADA affords protection from discrimination to any “qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). “A plaintiff who raises a claim of disability discrimination bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case.” Lajeunesse v. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co., 160 F.Supp.2d 324, 330 (D.Conn.2001) (citing Ryan v. Grae & Rybicki, P.C., 135 F.3d 867, 869 (2d Cir.1998); Wernick v. Federal Reserve Bank, 91 F.3d 379, 383 (2d Cir.1996)). If the plaintiff fails to establish any element of her prima facie case, then summary judgment may be appropriate. Kellogg v. Union Pac. RR. Co., 233 F.3d 1083, 1086 (8th Cir.2000). However, if the plaintiff proves her prima facie case, the defendant must then articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Id. If the defendant successfully does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer’s proffered legitimate reason is merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Id. Thus, in order for Barnes to recover on her ADA claim, she must establish that, at the time she alleges she was discriminated against: (1) she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she was qualified to perform the essential functions of the position; and (3) she suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination based on disability. E.g., Dropinski v. Douglas County, Neb., 298 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir.2002) (outlining prima facie case of disability discrimination) (citing Greer v. Emerson Elec. Co., 185 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir.1999); Cooper v. Clin Corp., Winchester Div., 246 F.3d 1083, 1087 (8th Cir.2001) (same) (citing Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc)); Heaser v. Toro Co., 247 F.3d 826, 830 (8th Cir.2001) (same); Maziarka v. Mills Fleet Farm, Inc., 245 F.3d 675, 678 (8th Cir.2001) (same); Taylor v. Nimock’s Oil Co., 214 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Treanor v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 200 F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 214 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Browning v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1043, 1047 (8th Cir.1999) (same). “Discrimination includes ‘not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... unless [the employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of [the employer].’ ” Heaser v. The Toro Co., 247 F.3d 826, 830 (8th Cir.2001) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)) (alterations in original). Moreover, “[t]he proof necessary for discrimination cases is flexible and varies with the specific facts of each case.” Id. (citing Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 152 F.3d 1018, 1022 (8th Cir.1998)). The threshold question in any disability discrimination case is whether a plaintiff is “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA. See Brunko v. Mercy Hosp., 260 F.3d 939, 942 (8th Cir.2001) (“Because Brunko has not met the first element of actual or perceived disability of a prima facie case under the ADA, she is not entitled to protection under the ADA.”); Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Med. Ctr., 95 F.3d 674, 677 (8th Cir.1996) (stating that threshold requirement of ADA claim is establishing “disability”); cf. Kellogg v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 233 F.3d 1083, 1086 (8th Cir.2000) (stating that summary judgment is proper in ADA claim where plaintiff fails to establish any element of prima facie case). This is so because if a plaintiff is impaired but not statutorily “disabled,” she or he will not fall under the “protective umbrella” of the ADA; thus, the ADA does not prohibit an employer from taking an adverse employment action against a plaintiff because of an impairment if that impairment does not qualify as a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA. Browning, 178 F.3d at 1048-49; accord Lessard v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 175 F.3d 193, 197 (1st Cir.1999) (“Under the ADA, not all impairments lead to protection.”). The ADA defines “disability” in three discrete ways: A disability within the meaning of the Act is “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Barnes has alleged that she is statutorily disabled based on all three definitions of “disability.” The court will address each of the arguments in turn. 2. Barnes’s Actual disability claim: 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) Count I of Barnes’s complaint alleges that she suffers from an actual disability and that Sioux Valley rescinded its employment offer because of that actual disability. In their cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties dispute whether or not Barnes’s rheumatoid arthritis and related physical restrictions rise to the level of an actual disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued regulations defining the three elements of disability contained in subsection (A). See 29 C.F.R. § 1680.2 (2002). Those elements are: (1) a physical or mental impairment; (2) that affects a major life activity; (3) and whose effects substantially limit that activity. See id.; accord Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.2d 540 (1998) (directing district courts to perform three step inquiry to assess whether a particular condition constitutes a disability for purposes of subsection (A) of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)). “Physical or mental impairment” is defined as “[a]ny physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” Id. § 1630.2(h)(1). “Major Life Activities” are defined as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” Id. § 1630.2(f). In addition, the Eighth Circuit has expanded upon the non-exhaustive list found in the regulations and has held that sitting, standing, lifting, and reaching may also qualify as major life activities. Cooper, 246 F.3d at 1088 (citing Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir.1999)); cf. Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 639, 118 S.Ct. 2196 (emphasizing that the regulations provide an illustrative, rather than exhaustive, list of major life activities). Further, in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002), the Court explained that “ ‘[m]ajor life activities’ ... refers to those activities that are of central importance to daily life.” Id. at 691, 122 S.Ct. 681. The ADA’s “substantially limits” requirement indicates that an impairment must interfere with a major life activity “ ‘considerably]’ or ‘to a large degree.’ ” Id. a. Impairment Plaintiff relies heavily on her diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis in support of her contention that she is actually disabled and apparently seeks to place the burden on the defendants to produce evidence that “would create a genuine issue of material fact disputing that the plaintiffs rheumatoid arthritis interferes with major life activities.” [Pl.’s br., at 10]. The defendants disagree with the plaintiffs assessment of her “disability” and argue that Barnes has not come forward with any evidence to prove that her rheumatoid arthritis substantially limits a major life activity. Furthermore, Sioux Valley points to Barnes’s deposition, in which she states that, during the relevant time period, she was able to walk, eat, sleep, converse, comprehend, perform household chores, drive, and take care of her pets. The parties do not dispute that Barnes’s diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis amounts to a physical impairment. Indeed, as a physiological condition that affects the musculoskeletal system, rheumatoid arthritis falls within the definition of “impairment” in the regulations defining “physical impairment” for purposes of the ADA. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). The fighting issues are instead whether Barnes’s rheumatoid arthritis limits any of her major life activities and, if so, whether any such activities are substantially limited. b. Substantial limitations of major life activities The Supreme Court recently addressed a disability claimant’s burden under the ADA: It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status under this test [of actual disability] to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment. Instead, the ADA requires those “claiming the Act’s protection ... to prove a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation [caused by their impairment] in terms of their own experience ... is substantial.” Toyota Motor, 122 S.Ct. at 691-92 (quoting Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 567, 119 S.Ct. 2162, 144 L.Ed.2d 518 (1999)) (alterations provided by Toyota Motor Court). In Toyota Motor, the Court emphasized the need to perform an individualized assessment of a person’s physical impairment to determine whether that impairment substantially limits the major life activities of that particular person. See id. at 692. The Court reasoned that medical diagnoses alone are insufficient to qualify a person as disabled within the meaning of subsection (A) of the ADA because symptoms vary in degree and extent from person to person. Id. In Toyota Motor, the respondent suffered from carpal tunnel. Id. The Court noted the following: An individualized assessment of the effect of an impairment is particularly necessary when the impairment is one whose symptoms vary widely from person to person. Carpal tunnel syndrome, one of respondent’s impairments, is just such a condition. While cases of severe carpal tunnel syndrome are characterized by muscle atrophy and extreme sensory deficits, mild cases generally do not have either of these effects and create only intermittent symptoms of numbness and tingling. Studies have further shown that, even without surgical treatment, one quarter of carpal tunnel cases resolve in one month, but that in 22 percent of cases, symptoms last for eight years or longer. When pregnancy is the cause of carpal tunnel syndrome, in contrast, the symptoms normally resolve within two weeks of delivery. Given these large potential differences in the severity and duration of the effects of carpal tunnel syndrome, an individual’s carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis, on its own, does not indicate whether the individual has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Id. Like carpal tunnel syndrome, the effects of rheumatoid arthritis vary widely from person to person. Barnes’s physicians, Dr. Deffer and Dr. Robison, testified in their depositions that the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis vary widely, that it is a disease that “waxes and wanes,” and that it oftentimes resolves itself or subsides as a person ages. Thus, because rheumatoid arthritis is a disease of degrees, like ADA claimants affected by carpal tunnel syndrome, the onus is on Barnes to come forward with the major life activities affected by the effects of her rheumatoid arthritis and to demonstrate that those effects substantially limit her identified major life activities. i. Major life activities. However, Barnes identified in her moving papers no major life activities affected by her rheumatoid arthritis. To the contrary, the summary judgment record is replete with unrebutted evidence that Barnes’s rheumatoid arthritis was under control in August of 2000 when she applied for an LPN position at Oak Park and that it had been under control for the previous two years. Apart from an inability to stand on her toes, which was a temporary impairment caused by her foot surgery and not a symptom of her rheumatoid arthritis, Barnes did not identify any major life activities affected by her rheumatoid arthritis. She testified in her deposition that in August of 2000 her rheumatoid arthritis was not restricting any activities in which she wanted to engage but could not because of her disease. [Deft.’s App., at 19]. In addition, she stated that she was able to walk, eat, sleep, converse, perform household chores, drive, engage in hobbies, and take care of her dogs. [Deft.’s App., at 22]. Barnes, furthermore, stated that she walks a few blocks every day and that her rheumatoid arthritis was controlled by medication. [Deft.’s App., at 22], The only restrictions, albeit unidentified as major life activities by the plaintiff, that affected Barnes during the relevant time period of her alleged disability are the lifting, standing, and walking restrictions imposed by Dr. Hewitt at the conclusion of Barnes’s “Fitness for Duty Exam.” However, Barnes explicitly does not argue that these activities of lifting, standing, and walking qualify as disabling limitations in her case. See 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.2(i) (non-exhaustive list of major life activities, which includes walking, standing, and lifting). Nor would such an argument, viewed in isolation, prevail because, undercutting this argument would be Dr. Deffer’s and Dr. Robinson’s releases to work, which indicate that Barnes can return to work and that she has no restrictions. Furthermore, Dr. Hewitt opined that Barnes would unlikely be able to lift more than 25-30 pounds “on more than an occasional basis” and, because of her recent surgery, “it is unlikely she would be able to tolerate prolonged standing or walking.” [Deft.’s App., at 119]. Sioux Valley contends that, because the lifting, standing, and walking restrictions were all related to Barnes’s surgery, and, therefore, temporary, they do not constitute substantial limitations on major life activities as a matter of law. ii. Substantially limited. Dr. Hewitt’s report unmistakably indicates that Barnes’s standing and walking restrictions were related to her recent foot surgery. Notably, the foot surgery was an outgrowth of Barnes’s rheumatoid arthritis— the arthritis destroyed Barnes’s ankle joint, which ultimately necessitated replacement. When Freeman asked for clarification as to whether the standing and walking restrictions were temporary, Dr. Hewitt responded that they would remain in effect until Barnes reached maximum medical improvement. [Deft.’s App., at 122], The report is ambiguous as to whether the 25-30 pound lifting restriction was permanent. However, when reviewing the restrictions Dr. Hewitt imposed, Dr. Deffer disagreed with Dr. Hewitt’s assessment insofar as Dr. Deffer interpreted them to be permanent. Dr. Deffer testified: I think once her foot pain had settled down and she was up and moving, I think she would slowly work into lifting more and more, because she’d been sedentary, she’d been doing nothing. And certainly, initially she would be limited but that’s with any work. And then when she started being more active, I think she could lift more. And I agree that, you know, prolonged standing and walking was going to be a problem because of her recent surgery, but even again, that would improve as she continued to walk and stand longer. [Deft’s App., at 170]. He further stated that, once Barnes had fully recovered from her foot surgery (in 4-6 weeks), her lifting restrictions would be “limitations of her stature,” not specifically related to her rheumatoid arthritis. [Deft.’s App., at 172]. Limitations arising out of her rheumatoid arthritis, however, would occur during joint “flare-ups,” which result in temporary incapacitation. Under ordinary circumstances, Barnes’s “only limitation would be moving heavy patients,” according to Dr. Deffer’s notes following a September 21, 2000 examination of Barnes. [Deft.’s App., at 185]. As a matter of law, an “impairment’s impact must be permanent or long term” to qualify as a substantially limiting impairment within the meaning of the ADA. Toyota Motor, 122 S.Ct. at 691 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(ii)-(ni) (2001)); accord Mellon v. Federal Express Corp., 239 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir.2001) (“Only a permanent or long-term condition will suffice” to qualify a person for the ADA’s protection); Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp., 128 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir.1997) (“Based on the [EEOC] factors, it is evident that the term ‘disability’ does not include temporary .medical conditions.... Applying the protections of the ADA to temporary impairments ... would work a significant expansion of the Act. The ADA simply was not designed to protect the public from all adverse effects of ill-health and misfortune.... Extending the statutory protections available under the ADA to individuals with broken bones, sprained joints, sore muscles, infectious diseases, or other ailments that temporarily limit an individual’s ability to work would trivialize this lofty objective.”) (internal citations omitted); Lajeunesse, 160 F.Supp.2d at 332 (“The plaintiffs condition improved after his surgery and much of the discomfort to which he refers , was temporary. ‘[Temporary injuries ... without substantial limitations and permanent effects[ ] do not warrant the protections of the ADA.’ ”) (quoting Stronkowski v. St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., 1996 WL 684407, at *7 (D.Conn. Aug.1, 1996)); Hutchinson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 883 F.Supp. 379, 395-96 (N.D.Iowa 1995) (“ADA regulations, as well as ADA interpretive guidance, make clear that temporary, minor injuries do not ‘substantially limit’ a person’s major life activities.”) (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(j), 1630 App., at 407); 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.2(j) (“temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities”). Because the record is bereft of any evidence that Barnes’s standing and walking restrictions imposed by Dr. Hewitt are permanent or long-term and because Barnes is able to perform these activities, albeit at a slowed pace and for shorter durations than before she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, the court finds that Barnes’s major life activities of standing and walking are not substantially limited by her recent surgery. Indeed, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Barnes’s standing and walking restrictions were anything other than temporary and arose out of her foot surgery. However, that conclusion does not dispose of the inquiry because merely looking at Barnes’s temporary restrictions ignores the fact that her rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic condition that gave rise to the need for the surgery, and looking solely at her temporary restrictions is a superficial and overly restrictive view of Barnes’s limitations. In Gutridge v. Clure, 153 F.3d 898 (8th Cir.1998), the Eighth Circuit addressed a similar, yet distinguishable, question: whether impairments while recovering from surgery were evidence of a disability under the ADA. In Gutridge, the plaintiff contended that he was actually disabled and, in the alternative, that he had a record of impairment Id. at 901. He contended that his permanent lifting restrictions substantially limited his major life activities of lifting and working. Id. The Eighth Circuit rejected his argument regarding working because Gutridge obtained subsequent employment in a similar position after being discharged from the defendant’s employ. Id. Thus, he was not restricted in his ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs. Id. Furthermore, the court held that a lifting restriction of not more than forty-five pounds did not render him disabled as a matter of law. Id. Finally, Gutridge argued that his five surgeries and recovery periods following them were evidence of a record of disability. Id. The Eighth Circuit disagreed. Id. The court held that “[disability under the ADA requires permanent or long-term impairments, and impairments while recovering from surgery are not evidence of a permanent disability.” Id. (citing Heintzelman v. Runyon, 120 F.3d 143, 145 (8th Cir.1997)) (internal citations omitted). In her resistance to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Barnes acknowledges that the temporary restrictions arising out of her surgery do not qualify as statutory disabilities and that, in isolation, her abilities to lift, stand, and walk are not substantially limited. She states that she “does not rely on the lifting and walking restrictions imposed by the Defendant’s doctor to establish her disability.” [Pf.’s Resistance Br., at 9]. Nevertheless, she cites Toyota Motor and argues that “[i]f one activity does not independently qualify as a major life activity, but there are limits on several such activities, together than can be considered major.” [Pf.’s Resistance Br., at 6], The activities that Barnes urges this court to consider as a whole include: lifting, running, performing daily tasks, working, driving, bowling, playing golf, and engaging in social life. [Pf.’s Resistance Br., at 6]. The language cited by Barnes in support of her contention that this court should consider the cumulative effect of her rheumatoid arthritis on all of her life activities consists of the following: “If each of the tasks included in the major life activity of performing manual tasks does not independently qualify as a major life activity, then together they must do so.” Toyota Motor, 122 S.Ct. at 691. While this is an attractive argument, it fails because the plaintiff has taken this statement out of context, and this court does not agree that the Toyota Motor decision supports the plaintiffs argument. First, the Toyota Court was exploring a single life activity— that of performing manual tasks. See id.; accord Moysis v. DTG Datanet, 278 F.3d 819, 825 n. 2 (8th Cir.2002) (commenting that the Toyota Motor Court’s holding dealt with the major life activity of performing manual tasks). This test cannot be read to create a composite standard of major life activities under the ADA. While there may be precedent under the Social Security Act for taking a global view of impacted activities when no single impairment meets the standard of disability, cf. Munson v. Barnhart, 217 F.Supp.2d 162, 164 n. 2 (D.Me.2002) (explaining global assessment of functioning scores and their utility to an ALJ’s assessment of disability), Barnes did not cite, and this court has not found, authority to support a cumulative standard under the ADA. Indeed, unlike the Social Security Act, the language of the ADA appears to prohibit a “sum of the parts” analysis by defining “disability” as a substantial impairment that affects a major life activity. Second, the focus of the Toyota Motor Court’s explanation of what constitutes a “major life activity” is the Court’s definition of the phrase as “activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives.” Id. (emphasis added). Barnes has attempted to interpret Toyota Motor’s definition of “major life activity” as a subjective standard, while the Court clearly explicated an objective standard. “Major life activities do not include those activities that, although important to the individual plaintiff, are not significant within the meaning of the ADA.” Amir v. St. Louis Univ., 184 F.3d 1017, 1027 (8th Cir.1999) (citing Land v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 164 F.3d 423, 425 (8th Cir.1999) (holding that attending day care is not a major life activity); Colwell v. Suffolk County Police Dep't, 158 F.3d 635, 643 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that gardening, golfing and shopping are not major life activities), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1018, 119 S.Ct. 1253, 143 L.Ed.2d 350 (1999)). Thus, while Barnes may have enjoyed recreational running, bowling, golfing, and expanded social activities before she developed symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in 1992, these activities are not the ilk of activities that Congress intended to include as “major.” Instead, major life activities include “functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 45 C.F.R § 84.3(j)(2)(ii); see also Toyota Motor, 122 S.Ct. at 689 (citing with approval the regulations promulgated under the Rehabilitation Act defining major life activities). Assuming without deciding that the activities identified by Barnes collectively rise to the level of comprising major fife activities, the court finds that Barnes has not met her burden of proving that these activities are “substantially limited.” In Toyota Motor, the Court held that, to be substantially limited in a major life activity, “an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives.” Id. (emphasis added). Barnes does not argue that she is prevented from engaging in activities, but rather that “[s]he is unable to do anything to the extent that she could before she was affected with rheumatoid arthritis.” [Pf.’s Resistance Br., at 9] (italics added). Such a conclusory statement is insufficient to satisfy her burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). E.g., Mellon v. Federal Express Corp., 239 F.3d 954, 957 n. 4 (8th Cir.2001) (affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment in employer’s favor and noting that “the very general statements in plaintiffs deposition about her personal activities are not supplemented elsewhere or detailed enough to allow a fact finder to conclude the alleged restrictions are so serious in nature as to constitute ‘substantial’ limitations”). Rule 56(c) authorizes district courts to enter judgment as a matter of law “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Barnes has come forward with no information or evidence indicating that she is “prevented or severely restricted” in engaging in the activities she identifies as collectively comprising a “major life activity.” She walks for exercise, performs household chores, works 32 hours/week, cares for herself, and drives. Her conclusory statement that she does not perform certain activities “to the same extent” as she did before her diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis simply fails to generate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she is substantially limited in these activities. See Cotter v. Ajilan Servs., Inc., 287 F.3d 593 (6th Cir.2002) (“‘A single conclusory statement about an alleged substantial limitation is not enough to avoid summary judgment sought by the employer.’ ”) (quoting Anderson v. Inland Paperboard & Packaging, Inc., 11 Fed. Appx. 432, 436, 2001 WL 406434 (6th Cir.2001)) (citing Penny v. United Parcel Serv., 128 F.3d 408, 415 (6th Cir.1997) (holding plaintiffs bare allegation of a walking impairment did not suffice to prove that the impairment rose to the level of a disability)). Thus, in sum, the court largely agrees with Sioux Valley’s contention that, when viewed in isolation, Barnes is not actually disabled because of the restrictions placed on her related to her recent surgery. However, Barnes’s restrictions must be viewed in the context of her impairment, because it is that impairment that gave rise to the surgery, which resulted in the temporary restrictions imposed by Dr. Hewitt. Having rejected the arguments pressed by the plaintiff, the court still cannot grant summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on the question of whether Barnes is actually disabled, despite the scant evidence the plaintiff has presented. An additional consideration bears examination — the fact and significance of Barnes’s “flare-ups.” iii. Import of Barnes’s “flare-ups.” In Otting v. J.C. Penney Co., 223 F.3d 704 (8th Cir.2000), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an epileptic woman was statutorily disabled. In Ot-ting, the plaintiff suffered from epilepsy. Id. at 706. Despite medication and surgery, she continued to experience seizures. Id. at 710. Otting was a sales clerk at the department store J.C. Penney. Id. at 706. Throughout her employ with J.C. Penney, she worked in several departments, ranging from housewares, to fine jewelry, to women’s clothing. Id. at 707. The last department in which Otting worked was the shoe department. Id. Apart from having to climb a ladder to reach stocked merchandise, the job duties in the shoe department mirrored the duties in all other J.C. Penney departments. Id. After a medical leave for treatment, Otting’s doctor released her to work, with the sole restriction that she not climb ladders until she has been seizure-free for six months. Id. However, J.C. Penney refused to allow Otting to return to work and would not consider a transfer to another department. Id. at 707-08. Otting filed suit pursuant to the ADA, and a jury awarded her compensatory and punitive damages on her claim of disability discrimination. Id. at 706. J.C. Penney appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that Otting was not disabled as defined by the ADA because climbing ladders was the only activity Otting was prohibited from performing. Id. at 710. Because J.C. Penney argued that ladder-climbing was not a major life activity, J.C. Penney contended that Otting failed to prove she was substantially limited in a major life activity. Id. The Otting court agreed that ladder-climbing does not qualify as a major life activity. Id. However, the court disagreed with J.C. Penney’s contention that ladder-climbing was the only activity affected by Otting’s epilepsy. Id. The court noted that Otting could not speak, walk, see, work, or control the left side of her body during her seizures. Id. Hence, the court reasoned that she suffered from a physical impairment that substantially limited the major life activities of walking, seeing, and speaking. Id. at 711. The court reached this result by “considering the record as a whole and the effects of Otting’s impairment.” Id. at 710. Here, Barnes testified in her affidavit that she suffers from frequent flare-ups— approximately six per year. Furthermore, she testified that, during a flare-up, she is completely unable to care for herself. She testified that she cannot “get out of bed, get into or out of the bathtub, or accomplish the routine task of living” when her symptoms are flaring up: [Pl.’s Resistance App., at 2]. Her rheumatoid arthritis also causes other conditions, such as the deterioration of her ankle joint. The ability to care for oneself is at the root of what Barnes claims she is incapable of doing during an episodic flare-up, and such an ability is clearly a major life activity. See 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.2(j)(i) (“ ‘Major life activities’ include caring for oneself.... ”). And while Barnes has not articulated as much, the court believes that she has generated a fact question as to whether her flare-ups and other rheumatoid arthritis-related conditions impact her major life activities of caring for herself, walking, standing, and lifting based on her generalized assessment of not being able to do anything and based on her doctors’ statements that, during flare-ups, she is “completely disabled.” Barnes’s flare-ups are analogous to the Otting plaintiffs seizures because during periods when Barnes’s rheumatoid arthritis has manifested episodic flare-ups, Barnes cannot “do anything.” Further, Barnes has generated a fact question as to whether the severity and chronic nature of her rheumatoid arthritis flare-ups render her rheumatoid arthritis an actual disability within the meaning of the Act. Thus, in sum, the court finds that Barnes has created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her major life activities of caring for herself, walking, standing, and lifting are substantially limited by her rheumatoid arthritis because it causes severe flare-ups and other medical complications (for example, joint deterioration) that may be frequent enough and serious enough to rise to the level of a statutory disability, despite the fact she ordinarily is not substantially limited in any major life activities. The record evidence is undisputed that rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic condition,- and Barnes’s doctors testified that she suffers from particularly painful bouts of flare-ups. Dr. Robison testified by deposition that Barnes “has a severe disease. I think it’s been brought out by her history that she’s going to have periods of time ... where she’ll go and she does fine. And then there are times and have periods where she’ll have significant disability.” [Pf.’s App., at 14]. That Dr. Hewitt’s restrictions were imposed because of Barnes’s recent ankle surgery, which was a direct outgrowth of her rheumatoid arthritis, distinguishes Barnes’s case from Gutridge. The severity of Barnes’s rheumatoid arthritis, which may qualify as a statutory disability under the facts in this summary judgment record, necessitated her surgery,