International Disability Rights News
Service
Click here
for today's headlines
Keeping advocates informed, inspired and connected
since 1999.
Click here for daily or
weekly delivery . . . OR
Try
Inclusion Daily Express for two weeks FREE . . .
Medical Board of California v. Michael Hason
2003
March 10: Hason Case Dropped.
Hason Not Pleased.
March 5: California Drops ADA
Challenge
February 26: State Medical Board May Drop
ADA Fight
January 24: Legal Groups Ask For Advocates
To Act On ADA Case
Click here for top of this page
Legal Groups Ask For Advocates To Act On ADA
Case
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
January 24,
2003
WASHINGTON, DC--The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law and the
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS) are urging
grassroots disability rights groups to act on an upcoming Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case involves Michael Hason, who was denied a medical license by the Medical Board of California because he had a history of depression.
Hason tried to sue the board, which is a state agency, under Title II of the ADA which bans discrimination by state and local governments. The board argued that the 11th Amendment to the Constitution does not allow state agencies to be sued for money damages.
Hason's case is important because the Supreme Court would decide whether Congress had the authority to allow individuals to sue states for damages when it passed into law the ADA in 1990. A negative ruling might suggest that Congress did not have the power to enact many of the core protections in Title II, according to a statement from the Bazelon Center.
"The stakes are high," said Ira Burnim, legal director at the Bazelon Center, of Hason's case which is expected to be heard by the court in March and ruled on in June. "The court is going to be considering the very constitutionality of the ADA."
NAPAS and the Bazelon Center are calling on activists to ask their state lawmakers to support Hason's position. The national non-profit groups are also coordinating "friend of the court" briefs to be filed on Dr. Hason's behalf.
The state of Minnesota plans to file a brief in support of the ADA, but other states may join a brief in support of the states' rights position.
"We're counting on advocates to let their states know how important the ADA's protections are to people with disabilities," explained Sharon Masling, NAPAS director of legal services. "Briefs from the states could have a big impact on the court's decision."
Related resource:
"The Hason Case" (David L. Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law)
http://www.bazelon.org/issues/disabilityrights/legal/hason/index.htm
Click here for top of this page
State Medical Board May Drop ADA
Fight
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
February 26,
2003
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA--This Friday, the Medical Board of
California will vote on whether to pull its ADA suit against Michael J. Hason
that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It is my belief as Attorney General that the greater public interest of the State of California would be furthered by a withdrawal of the petition for certiorari in this matter," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer wrote to the state medical board last week.
If the board chooses to withdraw its petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court would be prompted to dismiss the case, a ruling on which could further limit people from suing state agencies under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.
Governor Gray Davis has said he "simply will not be party to any lawsuit that could put the Americans with Disabilities Act in jeopardy."
The case involves Michael J. Hason, a doctor who sued the California Medical Board after it refused to grant him a medical license because of his disability.
Hason, who experiences depression, argued that the board should have given him a reasonable accommodation by offering him a probationary license and requiring him to go through therapy. A psychiatrist told the board that Hason should be allowed to practice medicine because he was not a danger to patients.
An appeals court ruled that Hason could sue the state board under the ADA, but the board claimed that a 2001 Supreme Court ruling protects it from suits filed by individuals.
In that ruling, Alabama v. Garrett, the court determined that state workers could not use the ADA to sue their employers for damages.
Four Supreme Court rulings last year further limited the scope of the ADA. The Hason case is considered to have the highest potential for a negative ruling this term.
Related article:
"CA Atty. Gen., other officials urge state
medical board to drop Hason appeal" (Ragged Edge Online)
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/drn/hason022803.html
Related resource:
"University of Alabama vs. Patricia Garrett
& Milton Ash" (Inclusion Daily Express)
http://www.inclusiondaily.com/news/employment/garrett.htm
Click here for top of this page
California Drops ADA Challenge
By Dave
Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
March 5, 2003
SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA--Last Friday night, the Medical Board of California chose to ask the
U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss its case against Michael J. Hason, which was
scheduled to be heard March 25.
The decision means that the case, a ruling on which could have further limited people from suing state agencies under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, might not be heard by the high Court.
Nearly a dozen states, along with the U.S. solicitor general and disability rights advocates from across the country, had been pushing California's Governor Gray Davis and Attorney General Bill Lockyer to drop the case.
Last week, Davis urged the board to withdraw its "petition for certiorari" to the Supreme Court. Over the weekend the board and Lockyer, whose office represented the board, agreed.
Dr. Hason sued the Medical Board of California after it refused to grant him a medical license because of his depression. Hason argued that the board should have given him a reasonable accommodation by offering him a probationary license and requiring him to go through therapy.
An appeals court later ruled that Hason could sue the state board under the ADA, but the board claimed that a 2001 Supreme Court ruling protected it from suits filed by individuals. In that ruling, Alabama v. Garrett, the court determined that state workers could not use the ADA to sue their employers for damages.
The Hason case was considered the most likely during the current term to have a negative ruling against the ADA.
Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, who had filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs on behalf of his and seven other states against Hason's position in the case, was sharply criticized by his state's Office for Protection and Advocacy, and from Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, chairman of the Virginia Disability Commission.
Related articles:
"Crip activists get CA to drop Supreme Court
appeal" (Ragged Edge Online)
http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/drn/hason022803.html
"Kilgore court challenge criticized" (Richmond
Times-Dispatch)
http://www.timesdispatch.com/frontpage/MGBSC2G9VCD.html
Click here for top of this page
Hason Case Dropped. Hason Not
Pleased.
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
March 10,
2003
WASHINGTON, DC--As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday
to not hear a case that could been a serious setback for the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The justices canceled arguments scheduled for March 25 in the case of Medical Board of California v. Hason.
The Medical Board had refused to give Dr. Michael Hason a license because of his clinical depression. Hason argued that the board could have offered him a probationary license as a reasonable accommodation to his disability.
The case made it to the high court last fall.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, representing the medical board, dropped the case against Hason last month, partly in response to pressure from disability rights advocates.
Many legal experts predicted that California had a good chance of winning the case, which may have further limited the scope of the ADA in future state's rights litigation.
One person who is not happy with the Supreme Court's decision to drop the case is Dr. Hason. According to the Associated Press, Hason wants the court to require the state to pay legal fees and damages.
Click here for top of this page
Have the latest disability rights news delivered to your email Inbox
every week day.
Keeping advocates informed, inspired and connected
since 1999.
Click here for daily or
weekly delivery . . . OR
Try
Inclusion Daily Express for two weeks FREE . . .
Inclusion Daily Express
3231 W. Boone Ave., # 711
Spokane, Washington 99201 USA
509-326-5811
News@InclusionDaily.com
Copyright © 2006 Inonit Publishing