Volume 71, Issue 2

Full issue available here

Articles

The Scope of the Jury Trial Right in SEC Enforcement Actions
Matthew T. Martens & Troy A. Paredes
Cite as 71 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 147 (2015)

The Interrelationship Between Price Impact and Loss-Causation After Halliburton I & II
Mark A. Perry & Kellam M. Conover
Cite as 71 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 189 (2015)

Note

Out of the Haze: A Clearer Path For Prosecution of Alcohol-Facilitated Sexual Assault
Allison C. Nichols
Cite as 71 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 213 (2015)

An Americans With Disabilities Act Critique of Advance Direction Override Provisions

Abstract

This Article argues that many mental health advance directive (mental health directive) statutes violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Advance directives empower people to determine care to be administered when they lack capacity to provide informed consent. General advance directives (generic directives) typically address end-of-life care. Mental health directives govern treatment administered during periods of incapacity caused by acute mental illness episodes. Because end-of-life decision-making is different from planning for episodic mental illness, half of the states have enacted separate mental health directive statutes. These specialized statutes often provide doctors more leeway to force treatment on a patient in contravention of a directive than do generic directive statutes. People with mental illness who form directives are qualified individuals with a disability under the ADA. When a state makes it easier for a doctor to override mental health directives than the directives of other people, it excludes people with mental illness from full participation in the state’s advance directive program because of their disability. The ADA does not require public entities to allow individuals to participate in or benefit from programs where the individuals pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others (direct threat exception). However, mental health directive statutes often fail to require an individualized dangerousness assessment at the time of directive abrogation as is mandated by the ADA. This Article proposes a model override provision which allows doctors flexibility to respond to threats to human health or safety and complies with the ADA. The recommended approach also clarifies the relationship between mental health directive laws and involuntary commitment laws which is currently vague at best.

 

Full article available here

Cite as 71 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 25 (2015)

Volume 71, Issue 1

The 71st Volume of the Annual Survey of American Law is dedicated to Chief Judge Diane P. Wood

Full issue available here

Tributes to Chief Judge Diane P. Wood
Dean Trevor Morrison
Yael Tzipori
Eleanor Fox
Samuel Estreicher & Oscar G. Chase
Geoffrey Stone
Lance Liebman
Ross E. Davies

Acknowledgment
Chief Judge Diane P. Wood

Article

An Americans With Disabilities Act Critique of Advance Directive Override Provisions
Judy Ann Clausen
Cite as 71 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 25 (2015)

Note

The Return of the King: Rethinking Lear, Medimmune, and the Effects of Licensee Estoppel in the Context of AIA Post-Grant Procedures
Scott G. Greene
Cite as 71 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 81 (2015)

Volume 70, Issue 1

The 70th Volume of the Annual Survey of American Law is dedicated to Judge Guido Calabresi

Full issue available here

Tributes to Judge Guido Calabresi

Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann
Akhil Amar
Kenneth S. Abraham
Kenji Yoshino
Vincenzo Varano
Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye

Acknowledgment

Judge Guido Calabresi

Articles

The Regulation of Sentencing Decisions: Why Information Disclosure Is Not Sufficient, and What to Do About It
W.C. Bunting
Cite as 70 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 41 (2014)

A Scholar on the Bench: A Conversation with Guido Calabresi
Vittoria Barsotti
Cite as 70 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 101 (2014)