Advanced Practice Nurse faces questions about Shy Bladder diagnosis for Mr. Datka

In a tense and revealing session at the Milwaukee Board of City Service Commissioners, the discharge appeal hearing for Jeffrey Datka unfolded, shedding light on critical medical evaluations and procedural questions surrounding his case. The atmosphere was charged as commissioners listened intently to testimonies that could determine Datka's future.

The hearing featured a key witness, Ms. Torhorst, an Advanced Practice Nurse Practitioner, who provided insights into Datka's medical history. She confirmed that she had diagnosed him with shy bladder syndrome after initial treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) showed no improvement. This diagnosis, however, raised questions about the legitimacy of the medical documentation, as it was noted that the evaluation instruction sheet required a signature from a licensed medical doctor, which Torhorst did not hold.

As the cross-examination began, the HR representative from the Department of Public Works pressed for clarity on the regulations surrounding Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders and the shy bladder process. Torhorst admitted her unfamiliarity with these federal regulations, which could have significant implications for Datka's case. The commissioners were keen to understand whether the medical evaluations met the necessary legal standards, especially since the formal diagnosis was not made by a physician who had directly examined Datka.

The session highlighted the complexities of medical evaluations in employment contexts, particularly for positions requiring a CDL. With the stakes high, the commissioners were tasked with weighing the validity of the medical assessments against the backdrop of regulatory compliance. As the hearing progressed, it became clear that the outcome would not only affect Datka's employment status but also set a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future.

As the meeting concluded, the commissioners faced the challenging task of deliberating on the evidence presented, leaving attendees and observers eager to see how this pivotal case would unfold in the coming days.