Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:24:24.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Journal of Law & Medicine and Harvard Law & Health Care Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Developments in Health Law
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 3-4 , Fall Winter 2001 , pp. 407 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Williams v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 224 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. granted, 121 S. Ct. 1600 (2001).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (1990).Google Scholar
Brief for Petitioner at 4–5, Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 2000 U.S. Briefs 1089 (June 28, 2001) (No. 00-1089).Google Scholar
See id at 5.Google Scholar
See Williams, 224 F.3d at 842.Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (1990).Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) (1990).Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) (1990).Google Scholar
See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).Google Scholar
See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.20(1).Google Scholar
See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Williams, 224 F.3d at 842.Google Scholar
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (holding that severely myopic siblings were not disabled because their vision was fully corrected with lenses).Google Scholar
See Williams, 224 F.3d at 842–43.Google Scholar
See id. at 844.Google Scholar
See id. at 846.Google Scholar
See id. at 846–47.Google Scholar

References

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 121 S. Ct. 1879 (2001).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189 (1994).Google Scholar
Martin, 121 S. Ct. at 1892–93 n.38.Google Scholar
Id. at 1884–86.Google Scholar
Id. at 1890.Google Scholar
Id. at 1891.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 12111–12117.Google Scholar
Martin, 121 S. Ct. at 1892.Google Scholar
Id. at 1893.Google Scholar
Id. at 1895.Google Scholar
Id. at 1896–97.Google Scholar
Id. at 1897.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar

References

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers v. Thompson, 251 F.3d 219 (D.C. Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
Id. at 221.Google Scholar
Id. at 222.Google Scholar
See id. at 221 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396–1396u).Google Scholar
See id. at 221, 225.Google Scholar
See id. at 222 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1315(a)).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-8(b)(1)(A)).Google Scholar
See id. at 223–24 (referencing Chevron U.SA. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984)).Google Scholar
Id. at 224.Google Scholar
See id. at 223–24.Google Scholar
See id. at 224–25.Google Scholar
Id. at 226.Google Scholar
See id. at 225.Google Scholar
See id. at 226.Google Scholar
See ElderLaw News, Appeals Court Derails Vermont's Affordable Drug Program, at <http://www.elderlawanswers.com/news/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=DETAIL> (June 12, 2001). (June 12, 2001).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+ElderLaw+News,+Appeals+Court+Derails+Vermont's+Affordable+Drug+Program,+at++(June+12,+2001).>Google Scholar

References

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 121 S. Ct. 1711 (2001).Google Scholar
See id. at 1715 (citing Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11362.5 (West Supp. 2001)).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 841(a).Google Scholar
See United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092–93 (1998).Google Scholar
See Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 121 S. Ct. at 1716.Google Scholar
See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 190 F.3d 1109, 1112–15 (1999).Google Scholar
See id. at 1115.Google Scholar
See Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 121 S. Ct. at 1716.Google Scholar
See id. at 1718 (asserting that under the Controlled Substances Act, there is “no currently acceptable medical use” for marijuana).Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
Id. at 1720–21.Google Scholar
See id. at 1719–20.Google Scholar
Id. at 1717. Note that the three-justice concurrence disagreed with both of the majority's contentions. See id. at 1723. In the concurrence, Justice Stevens declared, “First, the Court reaches beyond its holding, and beyond the facts of the case, by suggesting that the defense of necessity is unavailable for anyone under the Controlled Substances Act. … Second, the Court gratuitously casts doubt on ‘whether necessity can ever be a defense’ to any federal statute that does not explicitly provide for it, calling such a defense into question by a misleading reference to its existence as an ‘open question.’” Id.Google Scholar
See Glantz, L., “Supremes Offer No Relief,” National Law Journal, 23, no. 45 (2001): A21. Glantz contends that the Court's decision in Oakland Cannabis disregards its “earlier concern for the humane treatment of seriously ill patients,” as demonstrated in Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).Google Scholar
Alaska, California, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and the District of Columbia have not indicated any changes to their medical-marijuana law enforcement. However, Colorado's Attorney General has stated that marijuana manufacturers, distributors, and users may face federal prosecution. See “States Plan Few Medical Marijuana Changes After Decision,” AIDS Policy & Law, 16, no. 11 (2001): 5.Google Scholar

References

Virmani v. Novant Health Inc., 259 F.3d 284, 293 (4th Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
Id. at 287 n.3.Google Scholar
Presbyterian Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital Matthews are subsidiaries of Novant Health Inc., formerly known as Presbyterian Health Services Corporation. See id. at 285 n.1.Google Scholar
Id. at 285.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Id. (citing Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Services Corp., 488 S.E.2d 284, 289 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See id. at 285–86 (referencing 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981, 1985 (West 1994)).Google Scholar
See id. at 286.Google Scholar
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-95(b) (1999).Google Scholar
See Virmani, 259 F.3d at 286.Google Scholar
Id. at 287 n.3.Google Scholar
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).Google Scholar
Virmani, 259 F.3d at 288.Google Scholar
Id. at 289.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 288.Google Scholar
Id. at 291.Google Scholar
Id. at 290.Google Scholar
Id. at 291.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. 11101–11152 (2000).Google Scholar
Virmani, 259 F.3d at 291.Google Scholar
Id. at 293–95.Google Scholar

References

See Reimer v. Champion Healthcare Corp., 258 F.3d 720, 724 (8th Cir. 2001).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. §§ 206–207 (1994 & Supp. V 1999).Google Scholar
See Reimer, 258 F.3d at 723.Google Scholar
See id. at 724.Google Scholar
Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 133 (1944).Google Scholar
See Reimer, 258 F.3d at 724 (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 137–38 (1944)).Google Scholar
Id. at 724–25.Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1).Google Scholar
See Reimer, 258 F.3d at 725.Google Scholar
Wisnewski v. Champion Healthcare Corp., No. CIVA3-96-72, 2000 WL 1474414, at *8 n.13 (D.N.D. January 11, 2000).Google Scholar
See Reimer, 258 F.3d at 726–27.Google Scholar
Id. at 727.Google Scholar
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 531 U.S. 1004 (2001).Google Scholar
Reimer, 258 F.3d at 727.Google Scholar
See id. at 726.Google Scholar