Logourl black
From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...

Howe v. Hull

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
874 F.Supp. 779 (1994)

Facts

Charon, an HIV-positive, took a prescription antibiotic drug and within two hours began experiencing fever, headache, nausea and other symptoms. Charon and Howe, his companion, went to the Fremont Memorial Hospital (Fremont) (defendant) emergency room and Dr. Reardon examined Charon. Reardon believed Charon suffered from Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), a very serious and often lethal skin condition. Fremont protocol required that Charon’s admission be approved to the on-call physician, Dr. Hull (defendant). Reardon telephoned Hull and informed him that he wanted to admit Charon who was HIV-positive and had a non-AIDS related severe drug reaction. The focus of their conversation, however, centered on whether Charon’s HIV had progressed to AIDS. Hull did not inquire about Charon’s physical condition, his vital signs, or the particulars of Reardon’s TEN diagnosis. Hull said “if you get an AIDS patient in the hospital, you will never get him out,” and told Reardon to transfer Charon to the “AIDS program” at the Medical College of Ohio (MCO). Prior to Charon’s transfer to MCO, Hull made no attempt to examine or see him. Charon was admitted to MCO and treated, but not based on a TEN diagnosis. Howe (plaintiff), as Charon’s representative, brought suit against Hull, Fremont, and others alleging their conduct and actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (FRA). Hull moved for summary judgment dismissing the suit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Potter, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 251,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 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.

Here's why 251,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 14,200 briefs - keyed to 189 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.