Health Law Keyed to Furrow
Howe v. Hull
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Howe (Plaintiff) was travelling with Charon through Ohio at the time Charon started taking "Floxin," a new prescription antibiotic. Charon apparently had an allergic reaction to the medication and got fever, headache, nausea, joint pain, and redness of the skin. Charon went to the emergency room of Fremont Memorial Hospital (FMH) to be treated and was initially diagnosed with toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), a serious, rare and frequently lethal skin condition. The doctor who examined him first was planning to admit him to FMH, but when the supervising doctor found that Charon was infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), he ordered that Charon be transferred to the Medical College of Ohio (MCO). Testimony revealed that when MCO was called and asked to accept transfer of Charon there had been no discussion regarding a diagnosis of TEN. The only discussion about Charon's transfer regarded his status as HIV positive. Before he was transferred, the examining doctor basically admitted the transfer had been based on discrimination. Dr. Hull (Defendant) was the doctor in charge of admissions that day and told the examining doctor that, "if you get an AIDS patient in the hospital, you will never get him out." When Charon arrived at MCO, he was diagnosed with a simple allergic reaction, was treated, and released from the hospital. Charon's personal representative, Plaintiff, brought a discrimination action against Hull (Defendant) claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 9FRA). Hull (Defendant) moved for summary judgment and this hearing followed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.