In the 1991 case of William 'Sky' King v. St. Vincent's Hospital, Sky King, a professional basketball player, sued St. Vincent's Hospital for medical malpractice after he was misdiagnosed with a career-ending heart condition that later turned out to be incorrect. The hospital had diagnosed him with Marfan Syndrome which led to his exclusion from the National Basketball Association (NBA) draft and ended his promising basketball career prematurely. However, it was later discovered that he did not have this syndrome at all and thus could have continued playing professionally without any health risks associated with the disease. King argued that due to this misdiagnosis by the hospital’s doctors, he lost potential income as an NBA player along with other related opportunities in coaching or broadcasting following a successful sports career. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.King stating that hospitals can indeed be held liable for economic damages resulting from their negligence even if those damages are based on speculative future earnings such as those anticipated by professional athletes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of William 'Sky' King v. St. Vincent's Hospital argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation and application of federal law regarding disability discrimination. The dissent contended that Mr. King was indeed qualified for his position, despite his physical limitations due to a back injury, as he could perform all essential functions with reasonable accommodation from his employer - which is protected under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They also disagreed on whether or not lifting patients was an "essential function" of Mr.King’s job as a respiratory therapist; they believed it wasn't because other employees were available to assist him when needed without causing undue hardship to the hospital operations or patient care services. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on subjective judgments about what constitutes an essential job function rather than objective evidence such as written job descriptions at time of hiring or employment advertisements.