In making the latter ruling, the court relied on the 1993 Dentistry Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and on the 1991 American Dental Association Policy on HIV.ġ.Even though respondent's HIV infection had not progressed to the so-called symptomatic phase, it was a "disability'' under §12102(2)(A), that is, "a physical. The First Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the lower court that respondent's HIV was a disability under the ADA even though her infection had not yet progressed to the symptomatic stage, and that treating her in petitioner's office would not have posed a direct threat to the health and safety of others. The District Court granted respondent summary judgment. accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others,'' §12182(b)(3). §12182(a), but qualifies the prohibition by providing: "Nothing shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the. of any place of public accommodation by any person who. She declined and filed suit under, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA), which prohibits discrimination against any individual "on the basis of disability in the. He offered to perform the work at a hospital at no extra charge, though respondent would have to pay for use of the hospital's facilities. Petitioner discovered a cavity and informed respondent of his policy against filling cavities of HIV-infected patients in his office. At that time, she went to petitioner's office for a dental examination and disclosed her HIV infection. Respondent is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but had not manifested its most serious symptoms when the incidents in question occurred.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |