FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 23, 2001

GLAD Criticizes Ruling In HIV Discrimination Case

(Boston, MA)  Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today strongly criticized a May 22, 2001 decision from the United States Court of Appeals in Boston, which ruled that a Leominster, MA obstetrician did not violate disability antidiscrimination laws when he refused to continue care for a pregnant woman after she tested HIV-positive.  The case is Vickie Lesley v. Hee Man Chie, M.D. (U.S. Court of Appeals No. 00-1254).

Plaintiff Vickie Lesley became pregnant in November 1994 and went to her long-time obstetrician/gynecologist, Dr. Hee Man Chie, for prenatal care.  When Ms. Lesley tested HIV-positive in March 1995, Dr. Chie terminated her care and insisted that she go to a “high risk” clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.  Dr. Chie claimed that he did not feel comfortable treating an HIV-positive pregnant woman.

“We are disappointed that the Court did not take a harder look at the doctor’s so-called medical justification for denying our client care,” commented GLAD’s AIDS Law Project Director, Bennett Klein.  “We hoped that the Court would have held doctors to the same standard of nondiscrimination as other public accommodations are routinely held to.”

The evidence showed that Dr. Chie was fully qualified to provide the medical services that Ms. Lesley needed.  The expert testimony in the case established that no specialization beyond that of a licensed obstetrician/gynecologist is necessary to provide basic prenatal care services to an HIV-positive pregnant woman, unless there are other complications from the disease.  Ms. Lesley had no HIV-related complications.  In fact, the Court acknowledged that both GLAD and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health presented compelling evidence that there was no medical justification for Dr. Chie’s termination of Ms. Lesley’s care simply on the basis of her HIV-positive status.

The Court of Appeals ruled that although Dr. Chie’s refusal to treat Ms. Lesley was inconsistent with prevailing medical and scientific standards, it would not engage in second-guessing his ultimate decision to terminate her care.  According to GLAD’s AIDS Law Project Director, Bennett Klein: “This case raised for the first time in an appellate court the problem that occurs when a doctor’s discriminatory motive in refusing to treat a patient with HIV is masked by the doctor’s false claim that he was simply making a medical judgment that he lacked the knowledge or experience to treat the patient.  Fortunately, courts have recognized trumped up claims by doctors that patients with HIV pose a ‘direct threat’ of transmission of HIV to health care workers as the discrimination that it typically is.  Unfortunately, courts have not been so careful where doctors claim to be making a decision about a patient’s care.

“Of course, we don’t believe that doctors should be required to treat a patient whose care is truly beyond the doctor’s area of practice or expertise,” added Klein.  “The problem with the Court’s approach, however, is that we frequently see situations where doctors simply don’t want to deal with HIV, but cloak their refusal to provide services in language which makes it look like they are just making a medical judgment in the best interests of the patient.”

GLAD brought this case in order to overcome the courts’ traditional reluctance, in these types of factual scenarios, to determine whether a doctor’s medical justification is in actuality driven by discrimination.  “This decision demonstrates some of the challenges that we still face in overcoming discrimination.  It is important to take on discrimination and we will continue to do so, even in the face of courts’ hesitancy,” said Klein.

In spite of the Court’s decision, Klein praised Plaintiff Vickie Lesley for taking a courageous stand, which educated health care providers about HIV in her community.  “At the time that we brought this case, many health care providers in the Leominster-Fitchburg area simply believed that HIV did not exist in their community.  One of the measures of Vickie’s success is that Dr. Chie stated in the lawsuit that he would not make the same decision today that he made in 1995.”

The Court of Appeals’ decision in Lesley v. Chie applies to an important, but limited type of discrimination lawsuit.  The decision does not alter basic legal protections for people with HIV, nor does it apply to cases with very different factual scenarios than those pointed to by the Court in its decision here.