Bragdon v. Abbott case brief summary notes
*This case summary is made of notes to the case. If you have a better case brief that you would like to supply, please post it in the comments below, or e-mail it to admin@lawschoolcasebriefs.net
Recommended Outlines for Employment and Labor Law:
Employment Law in a Nutshell
Gilbert Law Summaries: Labor Law
FACTS:
-The Respondent was infected with HIV.
-Petitioner dentist informed respondent of his policy against filling cavities of HIV infected patients at his office.
-Respondent sued petitioner under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12182 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
-After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-The judgment of the trial court, which ruled in favor of respondent, was affirmed by the court below.
-The judgment of the court below, was affirmed insofar as it determined that that respondent's HIV was a disability under the ADA even though her infection had not yet progressed to the symptomatic phase.
HOLDING:
-The Court held that HIV was an impairment from the moment of infection that substantially limited respondent's ability to reproduce, which was a major life activity.
-However, the judgment was vacated and remanded to the court below to give that court the opportunity to determine whether an analysis of some of the cited medical studies would change its conclusion that petitioner presented neither objective evidence nor a triable issue of fact on the health risks associated with petitioner's treatment of respondent.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
*This case summary is made of notes to the case. If you have a better case brief that you would like to supply, please post it in the comments below, or e-mail it to admin@lawschoolcasebriefs.net
Recommended Outlines for Employment and Labor Law:
Employment Law in a Nutshell
Gilbert Law Summaries: Labor Law
FACTS:
-The Respondent was infected with HIV.
-Petitioner dentist informed respondent of his policy against filling cavities of HIV infected patients at his office.
-Respondent sued petitioner under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12182 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
-After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-The judgment of the trial court, which ruled in favor of respondent, was affirmed by the court below.
-The judgment of the court below, was affirmed insofar as it determined that that respondent's HIV was a disability under the ADA even though her infection had not yet progressed to the symptomatic phase.
HOLDING:
-The Court held that HIV was an impairment from the moment of infection that substantially limited respondent's ability to reproduce, which was a major life activity.
-However, the judgment was vacated and remanded to the court below to give that court the opportunity to determine whether an analysis of some of the cited medical studies would change its conclusion that petitioner presented neither objective evidence nor a triable issue of fact on the health risks associated with petitioner's treatment of respondent.
- Bragdon v. Abbott (SC 1998) (p.510)
- The Supreme Court must decide whether HIV meets statutory definition of disability. The court holds that it does.
- Test is very convoluted/complicated:
- Must have an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity (MLA); or
- Record of impairment; or
- Regarded as having an impairment
- First part of test contains three parts:
- Impairment
- Substantially limits
- MLA
- This case deals w/ whether HIV limits MLA of reproduction.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment