RANDON BRAGDON v. SIDNEY ABBOTT (1998) by Nikki Arnold https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq By Nicolette Arnold en-us 2017-11-02 13:51:46 UTC 2024-06-04 21:09:54 UTC hello@padlet.com 1- WHO cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/202906689 Randon Bragdon, the petitioner, is a dentist who the respondent went to.

Sidney Abbott, the respondent, had HIV and went to the dentist for a check-up and had a cavity. ]]> 2017-11-02 14:03:30 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/202906689 4- Argued: March 30, 1998 Decided: June 25, 1998 cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/202909764 Context- time and place 

"In 1998, HIV/AIDS was the third leading cause of death among Black* women and the second leading cause of death among Black men ages 25 to 44. The AIDS rate among adults and adolescents (i.e., the number of people living with AIDS per 100,000 population) was 84.7 among Blacks and 37.8 among Hispanics, compared to just 9.9 among Whites" ("1998").

"In March 1998, African-American leaders were briefed on the highly disproportionate impact of the disease in their communities. They developed a Call to Action requesting that the President and Surgeon General declare HIV/AIDS a “State of Emergency” in the African-American community" ("1998").

"In October 1998, in response to these efforts, President Clinton declared HIV/AIDS a “severe and ongoing health care crisis” affecting racial and ethnic minorities. At the same time, he announced the creation of the Congressional Black Caucus Initiative, which later became the Minority AIDS Initiative" ("1998").]]> 2017-11-02 14:08:20 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/202909764 9- What was the impact of the Supreme Court case? cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203700795 The impact that came out of this case was that the HIV infection was protected under the ADA no matter what stage the patient’s symptoms were at. ]]> 2017-11-05 23:42:04 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203700795 11- Works Cited cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203703045 “ADA.gov.” 2010 ADA Regulations, United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division , www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm.

“Bragdon v. Abbott.” Case Briefs, Case Briefs, www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/health-law/health-law-keyed-to-furrow/duties-to-treat/bragdon-v-abbott/2/.

“1998.” The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, A Living History , hab.hrsa.gov/livinghistory/timeline/1998.htm.]]> 2017-11-06 00:08:06 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203703045 5- Sidney Abbott cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704127 2017-11-06 00:19:45 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704127 2- Randon Bragdon cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704155 2017-11-06 00:20:01 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704155 8- Ruling cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704437 In the United Sates Supreme Court case of if the HIV infection counted as a disability or not under the Americas with Disabilities Act (ADA), the court ruled that it did indeed qualify for as a disability. ]]> 2017-11-06 00:22:57 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704437 3- Content of Lawsuit cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704493 Sidney went to her dental examination and the petitioner -Randon Bragdon- had discovered a cavity in one of her teeth. The petitioner told Sidney of his policy against filling cavities for patients with the HIV infection and offered to do the procedure at no extra charge at a hospital but would have to pay for the . Sidney declined and filed a law suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 even though she was not yet at the symptoms stage yet of the infection. ]]> 2017-11-06 00:23:45 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704493 6- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704729 This act prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their disabilities in the setting of being able to enjoy the services of any public place by anyone who operates it.

"Held. (Kennedy, J.)  Yes.  The existence or nonexistence of a significant health or safety risk must be determined from the standpoint of the person who refuses to provide treatment or accommodation, and the risk assessment must be based on medical or other objective evidence.  No person is required to participate in or benefit from the services in any place of public accommodation if that person poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.  Defendant presented no objective evidence to show that treating Plaintiff in a hospital would be safer or more efficient than a well-equipped dental office in preventing the transmission of HIV.  However, this Court is concerned that the court of appeals mistakenly relied on the 1993 CDC Dentistry Guidelines, and the 1991 American Dental Association Policy on HIV" ("Case Briefs").]]> 2017-11-06 00:25:36 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203704729 7- ADA information cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203705313 "The Attorney General has responsibility for publishing regulations implementing the requirements of title II (state and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) of the ADA.  These regulations are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 28 CFR parts 35 (title II) and 36 (title III).  The Department’s current ADA regulations can also be found below:
Title II  (State and Local Governments) - HTML | PDF
Title III   (Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities) - HTML | PDF "  ("ADA").
]]> 2017-11-06 00:31:10 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203705313 10- Counter cheer2hoops https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203708697 Some would argue that since the petitioner provided the respondent with reasonable compromise around petitioners policies, and that the respondent had no symptoms from the infection so why should she be able to sue him for an infection that had not taken its toll yet and that the petitioner gave a reasonable solution to treating his patient. But the act is about the discrimination of someone just because they have a disability, saying that the respondent won because she was not being treated equally because of her infection.]]> 2017-11-06 01:04:54 UTC https://padlet.com/cheer2hoops/4rms92xqy5uq/wish/203708697