Administration of Anti-Seizure Drug by Day Camp Staff Not Reasonable Accommodation Under ADA
In a fairly recent case, a federal district court in Illinois ruled that rectal administration of Diastat,
an anti-seizure medication that is administered to patients with epilepsy
during seizures, is not a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. U.S. v. N.I.S.R.A., Case No. 12 C 7613 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
The Northern Illinois Special
Recreation Association had adopted a policy prohibiting its staff from
administering Diastat. Instead, staff are directed to follow the person’s seizure plan to the best of their
ability and to call 911 in the event of a seizure. Parents of a participant who suffers
from epilepsy complained that the policy discriminated against their child and
that the administration of Diastat is a reasonable accommodation under the
ADA. The United States Attorney General
sued NISRA, seeking a declaration that NISRA’s policy violates
the ADA and an injunction requiring NISRA to administer Diastat to participants
in NISRA programs as may be medically required.
The district court ruled that the Attorney General failed to show that
administration of Diastat by day camp counselors is a reasonable
accommodation. In reaching its
decision, the court stated that:
the government’s requested
accommodation seems to directly contradict the manufacturer’s instructions for
Diastat, which are mandated by the FDA to accompany the drug. The
manufacturer’s instructions state, in relevant part that the medication...
should only be administered by caregivers who in the opinion of the prescribing
physician 1) are able to distinguish the different clusters of seizures… 2) have
been instructed and judged to be competent to administer treatment rectally, 3)
understand explicitly which seizure manifestations may or may not be treated
with Diazepam Rectal Gel, and 4) are able to monitor the clinical response and
recognize when that response is such that immediate rectal evaluation is
required.
The court found that the government’s
request would require NISRA to disregard these instructions and held that
request to be unreasonable.
While this decision provides park and
recreation agencies guidance that they are not required to administer Diastat
to their day camp participants, the discussion is not likely to end here. The U.S. has filed an appeal. Additionally, the court opened the door for
further litigation when it concluded its opinion with the statement:
My decision might have been
different had the government presented statistics on how a Diastat program
under similar circumstances has been successful. Perhaps this data does not exist, and this
issue may need to be reexamined at some point in the future if and when such
data becomes available.
For
now, administration of Diastat is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA
and is not required by law. We will
provide updates as the litigation continues.
Post Authored by Jim Rock, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment