From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Glanz v. Vernick
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
756 F. Supp. 632 (1991)
Raymond Vadnais (plaintiff) sought treatment from Dr. David Vernick (defendant) for severe ear pain. Vernick prescribed antibiotics and ear drops, but the pain continued. Vernick then diagnosed Vadnais with a perforated eardrum and recommended surgery to repair it. However, when Vernick learned that Vadnais was HIV positive, Vernick refused to perform the surgery. Vadnais continued using the antibiotics and ear drops for months, but they did not fix the problem or stop his pain. Vadnais sought treatment from a different doctor, Dr. Yale Berry, who did not know that Vadnais was HIV positive. Nine months after Vadnais first sought treatment for his pain, Berry performed the surgery, which finally repaired the perforated eardrum. Vadnais sued Vernick, alleging that being HIV positive was a disability and that Vernick’s refusal to perform the surgery was unlawful discrimination against Vadnais based on his disability in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Vadnais later died, and the lawsuit was carried on by Rosalie Glanz on his behalf. Vernick filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Vadnais could not prove a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. One of Vernick’s arguments was that being HIV positive meant that Vadnais was not otherwise qualified for elective ear surgery. Berry testified that he would not have operated on Vadnais if he had known that Vadnais had AIDS. Vadnais claimed that although he was HIV positive, he did not have AIDS at the time he sought treatment from Vernick. Vernick failed to present any evidence that there were no reasonable accommodations that would have allowed him to safely operate on Vadnais.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Mazzone, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 631,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.