Law Commons^™

How To Compromise On Saving The Most Lives: A Commentary On Hellman And Nicholson, “Rationing And Disability”, David Wasserman

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Deborah Hellman and Kate Nicholson’s “Rationing Disability” is a skillfully integrated analysis of the legal and ethical challenges of avoiding disability discrimination in setting priorities for the allocation of scarce lifesaving resources. Their analysis goes beyond the important but narrow question of what it means to wrongfully discriminate against people with disabilities in this context to the broader question of how to find a principled compromise between the consequentialist goals of public health and the potentially conflicting public value of “equal concern and respect” for each person. I will focus on this broader issue.

I agree with much …

Rationing And Disability: The Civil Rights And Wrongs Of State Triage Protocols, Deborah Hellman, Kate M. Nicholson

Washington and Lee Law Review

The COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented natural disasters of 2020 remind us of the importance of emergency preparedness. This Article contributes to our legal and ethical readiness by examining state “Crisis Standards of Care,” which are the standards that determine how medical resources are allocated in times of scarcity. The Article identifies a flaw in the policy choice at the heart of the standards: the standards focus on saving as many lives as possible but, in so doing, will predictably disadvantage the ability of people with disabilities and racial minorities to access life-saving care.

To date, scholarly attention has focused …

One-Shotters Or Have-Nots Should Come Out Ahead In The District Of Columbia’S Private Sector Workers’ Compensation System, But Do They?, Melissa Lin Jones

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

In recognition of the humanitarian purpose of the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act of 1979, D.C. Code as amended, §32-1501 et seq. and the legislative policy favoring awards even in arguable cases, a claimant is entitled to a presumption of compensability (“Presumption”) when applying for workers’ compensation benefits. By establishing a causal connection between the injured worker’s disability and a work-related event, the Presumption enables a claimant to establish entitlement to benefits more easily; however, an analysis of decisions issued by the Compensation Review Board from 2005 – 2019 reveals the Presumption frequently is misapplied. Moreover, contrary to Marc …

Why Proving A Work-Related, Psychological Injury Claim Stresses You Out, Melissa Lin Jones

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

In recognition of the humanitarian purpose of the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act of 1979, D.C. Code as amended, §32-1501 et seq. and the legislative policy favoring awards even in arguable cases, a claimant is entitled to a presumption of compensability (“Presumption”) when applying for workers’ compensation benefits. By establishing a causal connection between the injured worker’s disability and a work-related event, the Presumption enables a claimant to establish entitlement to benefits more easily; however, misapplication of the Presumption makes it more difficult for claimants to prove work-related psychological injuries because they must satisfy additional requirements (including a credibility …

The Deliberate Indifference Standard: A Broken Promise To Protect And Serve The Mentally Ill, Katherine R. Carroll

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.