information regarding his substantial limitations and what accommodations he might need. Plaintiff does not dispute that he declined to complete the accommodation form. Instead, he acknowledges that he protested that the form was “not appropriate” and “unrelated to his need for reasonable accommodation.” PI. Resp. To Dfts. CSF, Para. 6 (citation omitted). As already noted, plaintiff also has acknowledged that defendants permitted employees to avoid completing the form by choosing to provide defendants “with written documentation from [a] doctor setting forth the ... disability [at issue], its substantial limitations, and the job modification needed to accommodate those substantial limitations.” Id., Paras. 6-7 (admitting Dfts. CFS, etardation, & Hosps., 10 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Far from being “unnecessary,” defendants’
holding that jury could plausibly have found that plaintiff had a physical impairment based on her own testimony and the testimony of an expert who stated that her morbid obesity was the result of a physiological disorder holding that expert testimony was not necessary in a case involving allegations that a senior living center was negligent for failing to install a fire sprinkler system holding that counsel was deficient for failing to consult an expert and present expert testimony about the physiological effect of toxic chemical exposure on defendants brain holding that a jury may conclude that morbid obesity constitutes a disability in cases in which the plaintiff presents expert testimony that the morbid obesity at issue is a physiological disorder involving a dysfunction of both the metabolic system and the neurological appetitesuppressing signal system capable of caus ing adverse effects within the musculoskeletal respiratory and cardiovascular systems holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty