Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 1999. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.

Reuters NewMedia - Monday May 24, 1999
James Vicini

The court rejected without comment or dissent an appeal by a Maine dentist who was found to have discriminated against a patient with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) because he would fill her cavity in a hospital, but not in his office.

The justices declined to review a federal appeals court ruling that Dr. Randon Bragdon violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law that protects the disabled from discrimination.

It marked the second legal setback for Bragdon before the nation's highest court in less than a year.

Bragdon refused in 1994 to treat Sidney Abbott, who has been infected with HIV since 1986, in his office in Bangor for fear that he would contract the AIDS virus.

Bragdon said that under his infectious disease policy he would fill her cavity only in a hospital because it would allow him to take additional precautions against being infected.

Although he would charge her his regular fee, she would have to pay the additional cost for use of the hospital facilities.

The Supreme Court in late June last year ruled that Abbott's HIV infection was a disability covered by the law, even though she had no symptoms of the AIDS disease.

But the justices sent the case back to the appeals court to reconsider whether the evidence in the record was sufficient to find that treating Abbott in his office would pose a direct threat to Bragdon's health and safety.

The appeals court reaffirmed its earlier ruling and held that a dentist's performance of a cavity-filling procedure on a patient with the HIV virus did not pose a "direct threat" to the health and safety of others.

Bragdon's lawyer, John McCarthy, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling was flawed and posed a conflict "with established norms of safety in other fields."

He said health care workers should not be required to confront greater risks than patients under the disabilities law and added, "The appeals court ignored evidence that universal precautions have never been shown to be effective against HIV."

But Bennett Klein, an attorney for a group called Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Boston, said on behalf of Abbott that the appeal should be turned down.

"Bragdon has had multiple opportunities to litigate the issued raised in this case," Klein told the Supreme Court. "There is no basis to reopen this case yet again."
990524
RE990508

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1999. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 1999. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .