Premium
Consider impact of recent ruling that gives team physicians greater power in determining athletic eligibility
Author(s) -
Masinter Michael
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
disability compliance for higher education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1943-8001
pISSN - 1086-1335
DOI - 10.1002/dhe.30144
Subject(s) - dissenting opinion , supreme court , faith , law , psychology , power (physics) , good faith , athletes , political science , medicine , physical therapy , philosophy , physics , theology , quantum mechanics
Do schools with athletic programs violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by prohibiting student‐athletes from participating in athletic activities without clearance from a team physician? How closely should courts review disputes over medical clearance? A recent 2–1 court of appeals decision in Class v. Towson University, et al. , No. 15‐1811 (4th Cir. 11/13/15) broadly defers to team physician judgments. The majority held that the school team could bar a student‐athlete from participation based on the decision of a team physician as long as the decision was made in good faith. The dissenting judge argued that the ADA and the Supreme Court decision in Bragdon v. Abbott required more than a good‐faith decision on medical risk; rather, Bragdon v. Abbott requires that medical risk judgments be objectively reasonable, “based on the objective scientific evidence available to him and others in his profession.”