Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 695

524US2

Unit: $U96

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

650

BRAGDON v. ABBOTT

Opinion of the Court

judgments of private physicians on which an employer has
480 U. S., at 288, n. 18. At most, this statement
relied.”
reserved the possibility that employers could consult with
individual physicians as objective third-party experts.
It
did not suggest that an individual physician’s state of mind
could excuse discrimination without regard to the objective
reasonableness of his actions.

Our conclusion that courts should assess the objective rea-
sonableness of the views of health care professionals without
deferring to their individual judgments does not answer the
implicit assumption in the question presented, whether peti-
tioner’s actions were reasonable in light of the available med-
In assessing the reasonableness of petition-
ical evidence.
er’s actions, the views of public health authorities, such as
the U. S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Insti-
tutes of Health, are of special weight and authority. Arline,
supra, at 288; 28 CFR pt. 36, App. B, p. 626 (1997). The
views of these organizations are not conclusive, however. A
health care professional who disagrees with the prevailing
medical consensus may refute it by citing a credible scientiﬁc
basis for deviating from the accepted norm. See W. Keeton,
D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on
Law of Torts § 32, p. 187 (5th ed. 1984).

We have reviewed so much of the record as necessary to
illustrate the application of the rule to the facts of this case.
For the most part, the Court of Appeals followed the proper
standard in evaluating petitioner’s position and conducted a
Its rejection of the Dis-
thorough review of the evidence.
trict Court’s reliance on the Marianos afﬁdavits was a correct
application of the principle that petitioner’s actions must be
evaluated in light of the available, objective evidence. The
record did not show that CDC had published the conclusion
set out in the afﬁdavits at the time petitioner refused to treat
respondent.

107 F. 3d, at 946, n. 7.

A further illustration of a correct application of the objec-
tive standard is the Court of Appeals’ refusal to give weight