LANDMARK CASES IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Dr. Bragdon (a dentist) refused to perform a dental procedure on Abbott (a woman with asymptomatic HIV) outside of a hospital setting due to his concern about HIV transmission. Abbott would be required to cover the hospital fees.
Healthcare facilities fall under the scope of the ADA, however, when a patient poses a “direct threat” to the health & safety of others, ADA protections aren’t guaranteed.
Abbott sued Bragdon, arguing that he discriminated against her on the basis of her HIV diagnosis.
US Supreme Court ruled that HIV is considered a disability under ADA as it impairs a Major Life Activity (MLA) - reproduction. It noted that the ADA thus prohibits discrimination based on HIV status, but does not prohibit necessary precautions.

HIV, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, is considered a disability under the ADA as it impacts a Major Life Activity (MLA) - reproduction.

LC and EW were women with intellectual disabilities. They were eligible for discharge from the state hospital, and determined to be appropriate for community care, but due to lack of community resources, they remained confined.
LC & EW sued, arguing that continued confinement violated the ADA.
ADA prevents discrimination on the basis of disabilities, establishing that those with disabilities shall not be excluded from participation in the services, programs, or activities of a public entity due to their disability.
US Supreme Court ruled that Title II of the ADA requires that services be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual.

Under Title II of the ADA, services must be provided to individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual, as long as:
- The individual does not oppose community placement, and
- The placement can be reasonably accommodated in consideration of available community resources & the needs of others with disabilities.

The US sued Georgia, arguing that their prison system was in violation of Title II of the ADA as prisoners with disabilities weren’t receiving reasonable accommodations.
Prisoners confined to wheelchairs had been housed in facilities with no ramps, accessible showers, or other appropriate accommodations.
Georgia argued protection from ADA lawsuits under Sovereign Immunity.
US Supreme Court ruled that the ADA applies to prisons, and states cannot claim sovereign immunity for ADA violations that involve 14th Amendment violations.

Prisons are subject to the ADA.
States cannot claim sovereign immunity from ADA violations that involve 14th Amendment violations.