Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 13:55:35 -0800
From: GLADLAW@aol.com

NEWS RELEASE


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, MARCH 6, 1997

Contact:  Bennet Klein, Esq.
              AIDS Law Project Director
              Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)
             (617) 426-1350

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES IN LANDMARK CASE THAT HEALTH CARE WORKERS CANNOT
REFUSE TO TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV

(Boston, MA)  In the first case of its kind to reach a federal appeals court,
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today set a new
precdent that it is illegal under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) for a dentist to refuse to treat a patient with HIV based on the fear
of transmission from a patient to a dentist.  The decision is also the first
federal appellate ruling to establish that people with HIV who do not have
symptoms are protected from discrmination under the ADA in employment, public
services, and public accomodations.  The Court ruled against a dentist in
Bangor, Maine, Randon Bragdon, D.M.D., who had a written policy of refusing
to treat any patient with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

"This ruling is an important victory for men, women and children everywhere
who face discrimination because of their HIV status,"  said Bennett H. Klein,
director of the AIDS Law Project for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
(GLAD) in Boston, which represented the plaintiff in the case along with
David G. Webbert, Esq. of Augusta, Maine.  Added Klein, "this victory is the
first appellate decision in the country to reject the argument that a doctor
can refuse to treat a patient with HIV or AIDS because of the irrational fear
of transmission of HIV from a patient to a doctor or other patients.  The
Court sent a clear signal to doctors and dentists that discrimination against
the nearly one million Americans living with HIV will not be tolerated and is
scientifically unjustified."

GLAD's cooperating attorney David G. Webbert of Johnson, Webbert &
Laubenstein in Augusta, Maine, states that, "This victory has enormous
implications for people with HIV.  People with HIV have experienced
widespread discrmination in access to health care.  If Dr. Bragdon's position
in this case had prevailed, then any doctor or nurse could refuse to draw
blood or insert an intravenous line for any patient with HIV."

The Court established tewo legal precedents in this case:  First, the Court
held that a dentist's fear of potential HIV transmission from the patient to
the denstist is irrational and not based on scientific evidence and therefore
not a basis for exemption from the ADA's discrimination provisions.  Second,
the Court ruled that the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against disabled
people in places of public accomodation (including dental and medical
offices) - as well as in employment and public services - protects people who
are HIV-positive, but who do not yet have an AIDS diagnosis.

The case was brought by New England's Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
(GLAD), a public interest law firm, joined by the U.S. Department of Justice,
against a Bangor, ME dentist who has a written policy of refusing to treat
anyone who is HIV-positive.

The case is Sidney Abbott v. Randon Bragdon, D.M.D., Docket No. 96-1644.
 GLAD represents Sidney Abbott, a Maine resident who went to Dr. Bragdon with
tooth pain caused by a cavity.  Dr. Bragdon examined Ms. Abbott and
determined that her cavity needed filling; he refused, however, to fill the
cavity in his office soley because Ms. Abbott disclosed that she has HIV.

GLAD sued Dr. Bragdon on Ms. Abbott's behalf for refusing to treat her,
claiming disability discrmination under the federal ADA.  The Civil Rights
Division of the Justice Deprtment intervened in the case in support of GLAD.
 GLAD argued that public health authorities, including the United States
Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Assocation,
have determined that people with HIV may be treated safely with the use of
standard infection control procedures known as "universal precautions," which
are utlilized for all patients.  Indeed, there has never been a single
documented case of HIV transmission from patient to dentist in nearly three
billion dental procedures, and it is much more likely that Dr. Bragdon would
be struck by lightning than that he would contract HIV from a patient,
assuming he follows universal precautions - which he claims to do.

Although Dr. Bragdon offered to fill Ms. Abbott's cavity in a hospital
surgical operatory if she paid the hospital charges, Dr. Bragdon has never
had hospital privileges, and evidence in the case demonstrated that a
hospital setting would not provide any safety feature to prevent HIV
transmission other than the standard universal precautions which are
routinely used in private dental offices.  In addition, Ms. Abbott would have
to travel, pay more, and be exposed unnecessarily to bacteria and viruses in
a hospital setting.  So, there would be no added safety for the dentist and
added danger, inconvenience and cost for the dentist.

In December, 1995, a federal trial judge in Bangor, ME agreed with GLAD and
ruled that Dr. Bragdon's fears about HIV transmission were based on mere
"speculation" and "conjecture."  The trial court ordered Dr. Bragdon to
comply with the ADA.

Today's Appeals Court ruling upholds the trial court's decision.  The Court
of Appeals rejected Dr. Bragdon's claim that performing dental procedures
created a significant risk of HIV transmission.

GLAD is New England's leading legal rights organization for lesbians, gay
men, bisexuals, and people living with HIV and AIDS.  Its mission is to
achieve full equality and justice for all individuals in these groups,
primarily through impact litigation and education.

                                                         -30-