not expected to accommodate disabilities of which it is unaware.” Miller, 61 F.3d at 629 (citing 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.9 (1994)). The “logic of this proposition is overwhelming and has been affirmed repeatedly by other courts construing ... the ADA .... ” Id. at 629-30 (citations omitted). “ ‘The ADA does not require clairvoyance.’ ” Id. at 630 (quoting Hedberg v. Ind. Bell Tel. Co., 47 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir.1995)). It would also be difficult to charge Care Initiatives with knowledge of Gretillat’s squatting, crawling, crouching and kneeling limitations in light of the fact that Gretillat’s own doctor informed Care Initiatives twice during the course of Gretillat’s employment that no such restrictions were needed. See, e.g., Alexander v. Northland Inn, 321 F.3d 723, 727 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the court shall
holding that it was not wrong for the administrator to rely on the findings of an independent reviewing physician holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance holding employer was entitled to rely and act upon the written advice from the employees physician holding employer justified in relying upon plaintiffs physician holding that the trial court was entitled to rely upon contents of written admonishments and statements in which both defendant and his counsel averred that defendants plea was freely and voluntarily made