In Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Service, Inc. (1st Cir. 2002) 283 F.3d 11, a genetic amputee with only one completely functioning arm sued an ambulance company under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) (ADA) for refusing to hire her as an emergency medical technician (EMT). (Gillen, supra, at pp. 16-17.) The defendant employer rejected the plaintiff's application based on a medical doctor's opinion that the plaintiff could not perform the lifting necessary for the EMT position. (Id. at p. 18.) In reversing a summary judgment in favor of the employer, the Gillen court rejected the employer's argument that it was entitled to rely on the doctor's opinion, stating: "The case law does not support so mechanistic a view. To be sure, obtaining a physician's detailed assessment and then acting in accordance with it can be persuasive evidence that an employer has based its decision on an individualized inquiry into the applicant's capabilities. But a physician's endorsement does not provide complete insulation. An employer cannot evade its obligations under the ADA by contracting out personnel functions to third parties--and this prohibition extends to an employer's attempt to use a preemployment examination as conclusive proof of an applicant's physical capabilities. The short of it is that a medical opinion is often cogent evidence of nondiscriminatory intent--in some instances, it may even be enough to justify summary judgment, --but the mere obtaining of such an opinion does not automatically absolve the employer from liability under the ADA. Thus, an employer cannot slavishly defer to a physician's opinion without first pausing to assess the objective reasonableness of the physician's conclusions." (Id. at p. 31.)