Patients' rights and disabilities law on 2001 term docket

Despite congressional action on patients' rights legislation, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to address the issue of patient vs. health maintenance organization rights in its upcoming term that begins in October 2001.

In Rush Prudential H.M.O. vs. Moran, the question is whether states may enforce laws providing for binding independent review of decisions by health maintenance organizations to reject proposed medical procedures. The High Court accepted the Illinois case despite a request by the Bush administration to not take it in light of current congressional action on the matter. The H.M.O. appealed to the Supreme Court after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the H.M.O. should have covered a patient's $95,000 surgery that had been deemed medically necessary.

Meanwhile, the court will continue to address in its 2001 term issues involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In February 2001, the court held 5-4 that state employees did not have the right to sue their employers in federal court for violations of the 1990 law (Alabama vs. Garrett).

In its upcoming term, the court will hear a case about how disabilities are defined under the ADA. The court's ruling on the definition of a disability under the ADA could have widespread repercussions on workers nationwide. That case involves an assemblyline worker at the Georgetown, Ky., plant of the Toyota Motor Manufacturing Company. The employer's question: Is carpal tunnel syndrome a disability, entitling the employee to ADA, or an injury under Workers' Compensation?

David Strom, AFT counsel, notes that other issues important to public employees may come before the High Court, which will continue to fill its 2001 term docket through mid-winter. At this time, however, the court has not accepted any "11th Amendment or sovereign immunity" cases that address state government immunity from certain types of lawsuits in federal courts--lawsuits that stem from federal laws such as the ADA.

Since the court's 1996 term, a string of decisions on the issue of federalism--states' rights--have been rendered, including several that undercut state employee rights. For example, in January 2000, a 5-4 majority concluded that Congress lacked the authority to make states liable for the age discrimination complaints of their workers under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (Kimel et al.  vs. Florida Board of Regents).