Wall B W
Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1998;26(1):117-21.
In August 1997, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that disability insurance obtained as an employment benefit is not a "physical place" protected by Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The majority held that because benefits were obtained from an employer instead of from an insurance office, the insurance plan's disparity between mental health benefits and benefits for physical disabilities did not constitute "discrimination" as defined by Title I of the ADA. Other circuit courts have held that illness-specific discrimination in disability insurance coverage is indeed prohibited under Title III. The conflict between the circuit courts may ultimately work its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
1997年8月，美国第六巡回上诉法院裁定，作为就业福利获得的残疾保险不属于《美国残疾人法案》（ADA）第三章所保护的“实际场所”。多数意见认为，由于福利是从雇主处获得而非从保险办公室获得，因此保险计划在心理健康福利与身体残疾福利之间的差异并不构成ADA第一章所定义的“歧视”。其他巡回法院则认为，根据第三章，残疾保险覆盖范围中针对特定疾病的歧视确实是被禁止的。巡回法院之间的冲突最终可能会提交至美国最高法院。
