John Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that where the Rehabilitation Act and ADA employ language that “is substantially the same, we apply the same analysis to both”
• explaining that the court was “reluctant” to “substitute [its] judgment for that of [the university],” despite, potentially conflicting recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• explaining that the court was “reluctant” to “substitute [its] judgment for that of [the university],” despite potentially conflicting recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• affirming summary judgment against HIV-positive physician where the risk of transmission was \minimal but nevertheless ascertainable\
• applying same analysis to the ADA and Section 504 “[b]ecause the language of the two statutes is substantially the same’
• applying same analysis to the ADA and Section 504 “[b]ecause the language of the two statutes is substantially the same”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).