In the Matter of North Shore University Hospital, Respondent, v. Margarita
Rosa, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights,
Appellant.
86 N.Y.2d 413, 657 N.E.2d 483, 633 N.Y.S.2d 462
October 24, 1995
(Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
2 No. 205 (1995 NY Int. 215)
Decided October 24, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Michael K. Swirsky, for Appellant.
Anthony J. D'Auria, for Respondent.
SMITH, J.:
The primary issue here is whether the State Human Rights Law
(Executive Law § 296(2)(a)) was violated when a medical facility used
heightened precautionary measures while treating a patient perceived
to be at risk for carrying the AIDS virus. Because the Appellate
Division correctly determined that the procedures employed by
respondent were supported by sound medical judgment and prevailing
medical consensus at that time, we affirm.
In 1985, respondent North Shore University Hospital had an infectious
disease protocol in effect at its dental clinic. In an effort to
minimize the risk of infection to the patient, the staff and other
patients, the treatment of particular patient populations was governed
by respondent's infectious disease protocol. These precautions were
defined within respondent's "strict isolation techniques." Covered by
these infection control measures were persons testing positive for the
AIDS virus, hepatitis B, intravenous drug abusers, patients who had
received multiple blood transfusions, hemodialysis patients, persons
suffering from mononucleosis or tuberculosis, homosexual men and
prostitutes.
Although the quality of the dental treatment given to patients covered
by the infection protocol was no different from that given other
patients, in accordance with the clinic's strict isolation techniques,
special precautions were taken in the rendering of treatment to
patients in the populations covered by the infectious disease
protocol. Included in these precautions was the marking of the
SNIPPETS:
In the Matter of North Shore University Hospital, Respondent, v. Margarita Rosa, as
The primary issue here is whether the State Human Rights Law ) was violated when a medical
Because the Appellate Division correctly determined that the procedures employed by
In an effort to minimize the risk of infection to the patient, the staff and other patients,
Although the quality of the dental treatment given to patients covered by the infection
Included in these precautions was the marking of the examination room with a small letter
the knowledge of medical professionals regarding the contraction and transmission of AIDS was
Further, in the early to mid 1980s, the perception was that simply being a member of specific
Subsequent research, however, revealed that lifestyle and behavior patterns played a
Authorities in the medical community responded by recommending guidelines to prevent the
There was no evidence that these guidelines were used to prepare North Shore's protocol,
Prior to the release of the CDC recommendations, health care workers and institutions
On October 30, 1985, Martell sought emergency dental treatment for a root canal problem from
The complainant became upset as a result of the doctor's questions and left the clinic
The matter was referred for a hearing after a determination was made by DHR that probable
Complainant argues further that respondent's treatment was humiliating and its defense of
The standard for review of administrative action is whether there was substantial evidence to
Upon this showing the burden shifted to North Shore to rebut the presumption of
|
