MEDICAL JUDGMENTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS AND THE ADA

 

In School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline,[1] a decision under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,[2] the U.S. Supreme Court held:

 

… courts should normally defer to the reasonable medical judgments of public health officials.[3]

 

School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline was a case that involved tuberculosis, a contagious disease. However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania applied the holding in Arline to insulin-dependent diabetes in Davis v. Meese.[4] Also, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia applied the holding in Arline to deafness in Sumes v. Andress.[5]

 

In Bragdon v. Abbott,[6] in a decision under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded its holding in School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline.

 

The Supreme Court held that:

 

In assessing the reasonableness of petitioner’s actions, the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, the CDC [Center for Disease Control], and the National Institutes of Health are of special weight and authority. The views of these organizations are not conclusive, however. A health care professional who disagrees with the prevailing medical consensus may refute it by citing a credible scientific basis for doing so.[7] (emphasis added).

 

… petitioner’s actions must be evaluated in light of the available, objective evidence. (emphasis added).

 

In conclusion

 

The above citations should always be used whenever a public health source, such as a Surgeon General’s Report, is cited with regard to second hand tobacco smoke.

 

Bragdon v. Abbott makes it extremely clear that the burden of proof that public health reports on second hand tobacco smoke are untrue falls on whoever challenges the reports.

 

Moreover, School Board of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline and Bragdon v. Abbott should always be cited as applying whenever a determination is being made regarding whether a person has a disability or a determination is being made with regard to a reasonable accommodation under Title I of the ADA or a reasonable modification under Title II or Title III of the ADA.

 

Simply put; a disability determination or a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification regarding second hand tobacco smoke should always be consistent with the views of public health officials, and the determination must be evaluated in light of the available, objective evidence regarding second hand tobacco smoke.

 

Prepared by:

 

Billy Williams

Executive Director

GASP of Texas

http://www.gaspoftexas.com/

 

The statutes and regulations cited above can be accessed at http://www.law.cornell.edu/.

 

Additional information is available at http://www.ada.gov/

and also from the Northeastern University School of Law at:

http://tobacco.neu.edu/tobacco_control/resources/ETS/adainfo1.htm

 

DISCLAIMER: The content contained in this document has been prepared by GASP of Texas as a service to its readers. It is not intended to constitute legal advice. GASP of Texas has used reasonable efforts in collecting, preparing and providing quality information and commentary, but does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, adequacy or currency of the information contained herein. Users of this information do so at their own risk.

 

Download this page as a Microsoft Word document