Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Infertility is a physical impairment, should treatments also be covered
under the ADA?
Sue
> Bragdon v. Abbott
> No. 97-156
>
> Court below: United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
>
> At issue in this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case, 42 USC
> ss 12101 et seq., is whether a dentist has violated the provisions
> of the Act by refusing to fill a cavity of an asymptomatic HIV-positive
> woman in his dental office.
>
> On September 16, 1994, Dr. Bragdon refused to fill Ms. Abbott's cavity in
> his dental office. He offered to fill the cavity at a local hospital but
> Ms. Abbott would have been responsible for the extra hospital charge. At
> the time of her appointment, Ms. Abbott was HIV-positive but asymptomatic.
> The court below held that Ms. Abbott's HIV-positive status was a physical
> impairment under the ADA that substantially interfered with the major life
> activity of reproduction. Her impairment therefore was a disability
> cognizable under the ADA. Since the court held that a dentist's office
> was a place of public accommodation, Dr. Bragdon's refusal to fill the
> cavity at his office was a violation of the ADA.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
