Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 675.0

524US2

Unit: $U96

[09-15-00 14:39:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

630

BRAGDON v. ABBOTT

Opinion of the Court

posed a direct threat to the health or safety of others dur-
Id., at 587–591. The
ing the course of a dental treatment.
court relied on afﬁdavits submitted by Dr. Donald Wayne
Marianos, Director of the Division of Oral Health of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The
Marianos afﬁdavits asserted it is safe for dentists to treat
patients infected with HIV in dental ofﬁces if the dentist
follows the so-called universal precautions described in the
Recommended Infection-Control Practices for Dentistry
issued by CDC in 1993 (1993 CDC Dentistry Guidelines).
912 F. Supp., at 589.

The Court of Appeals afﬁrmed.

It held respondent’s HIV
infection was a disability under the ADA, even though her
infection had not yet progressed to the symptomatic stage.
107 F. 3d 934, 939–943 (CA1 1997). The Court of Appeals
also agreed that treating the respondent in petitioner’s ofﬁce
would not have posed a direct threat to the health and safety
of others.
Id., at 943–948. Unlike the District Court, how-
ever, the Court of Appeals declined to rely on the Marianos
afﬁdavits.
Instead the court relied on the
1993 CDC Dentistry Guidelines, as well as the Policy on
AIDS, HIV Infection and the Practice of Dentistry, pro-
mulgated by the American Dental Association in 1991 (1991
American Dental Association Policy on HIV).
107 F. 3d, at
945–946.

Id., at 946, n. 7.

II

We ﬁrst review the ruling that respondent’s HIV infection
constituted a disability under the ADA. The statute deﬁnes
disability as:

“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substan-
tially limits one or more of the major life activities of
such individual;

“(B) a record of such an impairment; or
“(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”

§ 12102(2).