Department of Justice




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           CR
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1994                         (202) 616-2765
                                                TDD (202) 514-1888


      JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OBTAINS $29,000 SETTLEMENT FROM CONNECTICUT
          DENTAL OFFICE FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PERSON WITH AIDS

        WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A Connecticut dental office that
allegedly refused to treat persons with AIDS will pay $29,000 in
damages and penalties under an agreement signed today by the
Justice Department.

        The agreement resolves a complaint filed with the Justice
Department alleging that an East Hartford dental office violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to treat a
Hartford man who later died of AIDS.

        "Discrimination against people with AIDS is based on
unfounded fear, ignorance, and prejudice," said Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval L. Patrick. "There is no
medical or legal justification for dentists or other health care
providers to refuse to treat people with HIV or AIDS."

        The complaint, filed by the Legal Aid Society of Hartford
County on behalf of the resident, alleged that the man had
contacted the office, scheduled an appointment, and indicated
that he had AIDS. The day before the scheduled appointment,

                                (MORE)


                                - 2 -
however, the office called him to cancel his appointment stating
that they would not treat patients with AIDS.

        Under the agreement, the dental office will no longer
discriminate on the basis of a disability, pay $20,000 in
compensatory damages to the complainant's estate and $9,000 in
civil penalties to the U.S. treasury, publicize its policy of
non-discrimination, and train its staff in the appropriate
treatment of patients with HIV and AIDS.

        Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against
persons with disabilities in places of public accommodation, such
as medical offices. Testing positive for HIV and having AIDS are
both considered disabilities under the ADA.

        The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") and
the American Dental Association have issued policy guidelines
stating there is no medical justification for excluding persons
from dental or orthodontic treatment solely on the basis of their
HIV-positive or AIDS status. Both organizations recommend the
use of "Universal Precautions," infection control procedures to
prevent the transmission of bloodborne diseases, including HIV,
in the health care setting.

        Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations
require dental providers to use Universal Precautions in all
dental facilities for all patients, regardless of known HIV or
AIDS status.

                                (MORE)


- 3 -

        "We believe that the vast majority of the dental profession
uphold their legal and ethical obligation to treat patients with
HIV and AIDS," Patrick added. "But the Justice Department will
continue to pursue those who violate the law."

        In September, the Justice Department obtained $100,000 in
damages and civil penalties from a Houston dental provider for
refusing to treat an HIV-positive man. Another suit, filed in
October 1993, against a New Orleans dentist is currently pending.

        The Justice Department has received and opened about 30
complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of AIDS.

                                # # #
95-020


     SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
                   BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
          HENRY R. DAVID, D.D.S., RICHARD A. SCHULMAN, D.M.D.,
                   AND ARNOLD R. WEINSTEIN, D.M.D.
                          COMPLAINT XX

Background

        1. This matter was initiated on February 4, 1994, by a
complaint filed with the Department of Justice ("United States" or
"Department") by Paul G. Thibault ("Thibault"), through his
attorney, Susan Garten of The Legal Aid Society of Hartford County,
against Henry R. David, D.D.S., Richard A. Schulman, D.M.D., and
Arnold E. Weinstein, D.M.D. ("Respondents"). The complaint was
investigated by the Public Access Section of the Civil Rights
Division of the United States Department Justice under the
authority granted by Section 308(b) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. S 12188. The complaint
alleged that Respondents violated title III of the ADA by refusing
to provide Thibault with their dental services because he has AIDS.

        2. Thibault filed a complaint making substantially the same
factual allegations with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights
and Opportunities.

        3. The respondents have denied the claims.

        4. The parties desired to settle and conclude their disputes
and differences without further resort to litigation and
accordingly engaged in settlement discussions.

        5. On April 29, 1994, after the parties had reached
agreement in principle on the terms of this agreement, Thibault
died of complications from AIDS.

        6. The parties to this agreement are the United States of
America and the Respondents.

        7. Respondents are dentists in the District of Connecticut,
and own and operate a place of public accommodation as defined in
Section 301(7)(F) of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

        8. Thibault has alleged that in early November, 1993, he
scheduled an appointment for dental services with Respondents.
Thibault also alleged that at this time Thibault informed
Respondents' employee who was making the appointment that he had
AIDS.

        9. Thibault further alleged that, later in November, 1993,
an employee of Respondents called him and told him that Respondents
were canceling his appointment, because they would not treat
individuals with AIDS.

        10. Respondents have denied the allegations in paragraphs 8
and 9.

Agreement

        The parties have agreed as follows:

        11. The Respondents agree to take the following steps: (1)
compensate the estate of Paul G. Thibault ("Thibault's estate") for
the alleged denial of treatment to Thibault; (2) pay a civil
penalty to the United States to vindicate the public interest; (3)
insure that Respondents' employees are appropriately trained to
follow their policy of nondiscrimination; (4) attend, with the
staff, a workshop on the handling of patients with infectious
diseases; and (5) comply with such other conditions as are set
forth in two agreements between Thibault's estate, respondents: the
Settlement Agreement among the Connecticut Commission on Human
Rights and Opportunity, Thibault's estate, and Respondent executed
on November 18, 1994, and the Agreement of Compromise and Release
between Thibault's estate and Respondents, executed on November 18,
1994.

        a. No later than 30 days after the effective date of
this agreement, Respondents shall issue a check in the amount
of $20,000, drawn payable to Thibault's estate;

                                -2-


        b. No later than 30 days after the effective date of
this agreement, Respondents shall issue a check in the amount
of $9,000, drawn payable to the United States Department of
Justice;

        c. No later than 30 days after the effective date of
this agreement, Respondents shall by notifying every member of
Respondents' staff in writing that it is the policy of
Respondents' office to treat patients with HIV or AIDS, and
not to refuse any treatment to any patients on the basis of
their HIV status.

        d. Respondents shall insure that every future staff
member learns the policy stated in subparagraph c, above, by
notifying every future staff person in writing, when they
begin working at Respondents' office, that it is the policy of
Respondents' office to treat patients with HIV or AIDS, and
not to refuse any treatment to any patient on the basis of
their HIV status.

        e. No later than 120 days after the effective date of
this agreement, Respondents and their staff shall attend a
workshop of not more than 3 hours duration, at a total cost of
not more than $500, s presented by the State Department of
Health and/or the Red Cross on the handling of patients with
infectious diseases.

        12. The Attorney General of the United States is authorized,
pursuant to Section 308 (b) (1) (B) of the ADA, to bring a civil
action under title III, enforcing the ADA in any situation where a
pattern or practice of discrimination is believed to exist or a
matter of general public importance is raised. In consideration of
the terms of this agreement as set forth above, the Attorney
General agrees to refrain from undertaking further investigation of
this complaint or of any matters revealed or discovered in the
investigation of this complaint or from filing civil suit under
title III so long as Respondents carry out their obligations as set
forth in this agreement.

                                -3-


        13. The Department may review compliance with this agreement
at any time. If the Department believes that this agreement or any
requirement thereof has been violated, it may institute a civil
action.

        14. Failure by the Department to enforce this entire
agreement or any provision thereof shall not be construed as a
waiver of its right to do so with regard to any other provisions of
this agreement.

        15. In the event that any of the Respondents fail to comply
in a timely fashion with any requirement of this agreement without
obtaining sufficient advance written agreement with the Department
as to a temporary modification of the relevant terms of the
Agreement, all terms of this agreement shall become enforceable in
United States District Court.

        16. This document is a public agreement. A copy of this
document, or any information concerning its contents, may be made
available to any person. Respondents or the Department shall
provide a copy of this agreement to any person on request.
        17. The effective date of this agreement is the date of the
last signature below. This agreement shall be binding on all of
the Respondents, and all of Respondents' successors in interest,
and Respondents have a duty to so notify all such successors in
interest.

        18. The person who signs this agreement in a representative
capacity for Respondents represents that she or he is authorized to
bind all Respondents to this Agreement.

        19. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between
the Department of Justice and the Respondents on the matters raised
herein, and no other statement, promise, or agreement, either
written or oral, made by either party or agents or either party,
that is not contained in this written agreement, shall be
enforceable. This agreement is limited to the facts set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 10 above, and it does not purport to remedy
any other potential violations of the ADA or of any other Federal

                                -4-


Law. This agreement does not affect Respondents' continuing
responsibility to comply with all aspects of the ADA.
For the United States:

Deval L. Patrick
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division




John Wodatch
Joan A. Magagna
Bebe Novich
Attorneys
Public Access Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, D.C. 20035-6738
(202) 616-2313


        Signed this 11 day of January, 1995.

                                -5-










                        Henry R. David, D.D.S.
Signed this 16 day of November, 1994.

                        Richard Schulman, D.M.D.
Signed this 17 day of November, 1994.

                        Arnold Weinstein, D.M.D.
Signed this 18 day of November, 1994.

                                -6-


                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                                )
Donald Galloway,                )
                                )
                Plaintiff,      )
                                )
        v.                      )       Civil Action No. 91-0644 (JHG)
                                )
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE       )
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,   )
                                )
                Defendants.     )
                                )
                                JUDGMENT

        On March 16, 1993, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and establishing a
briefing schedule to determine the availability and amount of
damages and whether a jury should determine damages.
Subsequently, the Court granted the United States leave to enter
the case as an amicus curiae. Pursuant to the briefing schedule
issued, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment
on the issue of damages. In his motion, plaintiff has waived a
jury determination of damages and all parties concede that the
Eleventh Amendment does not bar damages in this case. At the
conclusion of an evidentiary hearing held on July 26, 1993, at
which Donald Galloway and his wife, June Galloway, testified, the
Court awarded plaintiff thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) in
compensatory damages for the reasons stated orally at that
hearing, which are set forth in the transcript of that hearing.
In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law
articulated then, it is hereby
        ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff
Donald Galloway, and against defendants the District of Columbia
and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the total
sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 27, 1993.


                                        JOYCE HENS GREEN
                                  United States District Judge


                                  2



                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                                )
DONALD GALLOWAY,                )
                                )
                Plaintiff,      )
                                )
        v.                      )       Civil Action No. 91-0644 (JHG)
                                )
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE       )
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,   )
                                )
                Defendants.     )
                                )
                                ORDER

        On March 16, 1993, the court issued a Memorandum opinion and
order entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and establishing a
briefing schedule to determine the availability and amount of
damages and whether a jury should determine damages.
Subsequently, the Court granted the United States leave to enter
the case as an amicus curiae. Pursuant to the briefing schedule
issued, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. In its motion, plaintiff has waived a jury
determination of damages and all parties concede that the
Eleventh Amendment does not bar damages in this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
        ORDERED that there shall be a brief evidentiary hearing on
July 26, 1993 at 9:30 a.m. to determine damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 2, 1993.
                                        JOYCE HENS GREEN
                                 United States District Judge
                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                                )
DONALD GALLOWAY,                )
                                )
                Plaintiff,      )
                                )
        v.                      )       Civil Action No. 91-0644 (JHG)
                                )
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE       )
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,   )
                                )
                Defendants.     )
                                )
                                ORDER
        On March 16, 1993, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
order entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and establishing a
briefing schedule to determine the availability and amount of
damages and whether a jury should determine damages.
Subsequently, the Court granted the United States leave to enter
the case as an amicus curiae. Pursuant to the briefing schedule
issued, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. In its motion, plaintiff has waived a jury
judgment. In its motion, plaintiff has waived a jury
determination of damages and all parties concede that the
Eleventh Amendment does not bar damages in this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
        ORDERED that there shall be a brief evidentiary hearing on
July 26, 1993 at 9:30 a.m. to determine damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 2, 1993.


                                JOYCE HENS GREEN
                        United States District Judge