Smoke-Free Environments Law Project
The Center for Social Gerontology, Inc.
2307 Shelby Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
734 665-1126 • fax 734 665-2071 • sfelp@tcsg.org
TOBACCO: A LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUE
OF THE ELDERLY
by: Saidy Barinaga-Burch and James A. Bergman*
Published in Clearinghouse Review, October, 1996,
Vol. 30, No. 6
FDA Commissioner David Kessler calls
tobacco a "pediatric disease"1 because almost 90% of current
smokers started by the time they were 18 years old.2 However, about
14 million persons aged 50 and over are currently smokers,3 and over
434,000 current and former smokers die annually in the U.S. from
tobacco-related diseases,4 most of whom are middle-aged and older.
Another 53,000 Americans (also mainly middle-aged and older) who never smoked
die annually from the effects of second-hand smoke,5 largely of
heart, lung and cancer diseases. Tobacco clearly is also a "geriatric
disease."
This article is intended to
highlight how older Americans are particularly affected by the devastation that
tobacco inflicts on this nation, and to provide an overview of the legal and
policy issues concerning tobacco that affect elders which are in need of
further action by the legal community. By focusing on tobacco issues that
affect our nation's most vulnerable citizens--our children and elders--the
entire effort to halt the scourge of tobacco will be enhanced.
The ravages of tobacco-related
diseases on older Americans and the enormous financial costs of these diseases
on the health care and Social Security systems make tobacco a significant legal
and policy issue of the elderly. Direct medical costs related to smoking in
1993 in the U.S. were $50 billion.6 Former Health, Education and
Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano, now President of the Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse, estimates that in the next 20 years, Medicare will pay $800
billion to treat tobacco-related diseases,7 and Social Security will
pay $4.6 billion in disability benefits in 1995 alone to persons crippled by
tobacco-related diseases.8 Califano reported that, in 1994, of $87
billion Medicare spent on inpatient hospital care, $16 billion went for
conditions attributable to smoking.9 Underscoring the importance of
tobacco as a public policy issue which concerns the elderly, Califano stated
that:
The Annual Report of the Trustees of
the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund released in April, 1994 projected
that the Medicare program will run out of money in seven years.... [T]he
proposed solutions involve raising taxes or cutting benefits....[H]owever,
little time is spent in thinking about how we can keep elderly people healthy and avert hospitalizations. The
worst example of this is our failure to move aggressively on the pervasive
impact of substance abuse, including tobacco, alcohol and drugs, on both
Medicare and overall health costs...If the problems of substance abuse did not exist, we would
not now be concerned about the solvency of the Hospital Trust Fund.10
Tobacco is a public policy and legal
issue for older nonsmokers, as well as smokers. In its 1992 report, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that environmental tobacco
smoke (ETS): is a human carcinogen11 (i.e., there is a causal
relationship between ETS and cancer), causes at least 3,000 lung cancer deaths
annually,12 and "has subtle but statistically significant
effects on the respiratory health of nonsmoking adults."13
Other studies have concluded that 53,000 Americans die annually from
ETS-related heart disease and cancer.14 Due to the higher prevalence
of respiratory and heart problems among older persons, ETS is of particular
concern to the almost 70 million Americans aged 50 and over, who comprise 26%
of the total U.S. population. Thus, local, state and federal policies to
mandate smokefree public places are especially important to the health of older
Americans.
The legal issues of tobacco and the
elderly go far beyond public policy issues. In spite of the tobacco industry's
accurate boast that until 199615 they had never paid one cent in
judgments, litigation against the tobacco industry is surging. Older Americans
often are either the individual plaintiffs, as in the Cipollone and Carter16 cases or a sizable
part of potential classes, as in the Medicaid suits recently filed against the
major tobacco companies by over 10 states to recover the states' costs of
providing medical care for Medicaid beneficiaries who had tobacco-related
diseases. Since the physical horrors of smoking--lung and other cancers, heart
attacks, etc.--attack primarily older persons, older Americans are most likely
to be in the forefront of litigation seeking damages, appealing denials of
health care coverage for treatment of tobacco-related diseases, or seeking
injunctive relief to gain smokefree workplaces or facilities.
While older Americans constitute
about 30% of current adult smokers,17 and such major public programs
as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are profoundly affected by the health
effects of tobacco, little research exists on issues regarding tobacco and the
elderly. Even less attention has been focused specifically on legal and public
policy issues related to tobacco and the elderly. This article, therefore,
provides an overview of current legal and policy issues concerning tobacco and
elders that are ripe for further action by the legal and advocacy communities.
I. Policy Issues: Tobacco and the
Elderly
A. Smoking Cessation and Health Care Coverage
The benefits of smoking
cessation--even for older persons--have been well documented,18 and
reports from the Surgeon General, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and
others have focused attention on the importance of coverage by health insurance
of smoking cessation services.19 Nevertheless, most private and
public health insurance plans in the U.S. do not cover smoking cessation
services.20 Private health insurers are unlikely to add smoking
cessation services as a covered benefit until it has been shown that there is a
good market for such services and that such services are cost-effective.21
When private insurers do cover smoking cessation, it is usually to treat
smoking-related diseases, such as lung cancer or emphysema, rather than to
prevent them.22 State Medicaid programs have the option to cover
smoking cessation services as part of preventive services23 and/or
as part of prenatal care.24 However, Medicare, in which almost all
individuals 65 years of age and older currently participate, does not cover
smoking cessation services25 except under demonstration programs.26
This overall lack of coverage for smoking cessation services may explain in
part the low percentage of U.S. smokers who have received formal cessation
treatment and why low-income Americans have received the least amount of
smoking cessation assistance.27
The increasing move to managed
health care, however, may add to the number of older individuals who have
access to smoking cessation services. Approximately 4.2 million older
individuals who receive Medicare are enrolled in managed care organizations
(MCOs),28 and the numbers continue to rise.29 In
addition, elderly Medicaid beneficiaries increasingly are becoming enrolled in
managed care programs.30 By June of 1994, 42 states had a Medicaid
managed care program, with 24% of Medicaid beneficiaries (7.8 million
individuals) enrolled nationwide.31 While most Medicaid recipients
currently enrolled in MCOs are not elderly, the number of older individuals
enrolled in such programs is rising and is expected to continue to rise
dramatically in the future. MCOs will play an increasingly significant role in
the medical care that millions of elderly receive.
Because MCOs historically have
emphasized the importance of prevention, one would expect these plans to offer preventive
services such as smoking cessation. And, indeed, studies of insurance coverage
for preventive services show that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are
the most likely to cover such services.32 However, many still do not
provide this type of coverage. For instance, one recent study found that in
1992, 33% of all people enrolled in HMOs were not covered for smoking
cessation.33 A 1993 survey of 147 HMOs revealed that 40% did not
cover smoking cessation services under their plans.34 Additionally,
in 1993, approximately 25% of PPOs offered health promotion and disease
prevention services.35
In deciding whether to provide
preventive services such as smoking cessation treatment, health care insurers
are likely to continue to balance the need for preventive health services
against the costs of providing health care, short-term competitive forces, and
evidence of the efficacy of various types of prevention programs.36
Unfortunately, results of studies of intervention and smoking cessation
programs often conflict or demonstrate only a limited effect on smoking
cessation rates.37 Some studies, however, have found that tailoring
programs to a specific audience (e.g., older individuals) achieves higher rates
of smoking cessation than programs targeted to smokers generally.38
Smoking cessation treatment may be
even more out of the reach of low-income smokers who cannot afford the
financial costs and do not participate in MCOs with smoking cessation treatment
coverage. Because elderly people are more likely than other adults to be poor,39
cost of treatment is an important issue. While low-income elderly smokers may
benefit greatly from treatment,40 smoking cessation services, and
particularly pharmacological treatments (nicotine gum, patches, and nasal spray),
are rarely covered as preventive therapy and may simply be too expensive for
the individual to purchase. When covered by an insurer, prescription drugs are
usually limited to those specifically prescribed for the treatment of a medical
condition, i.e., coverage for nicotine patches or gum is generally available
only to those individuals with diagnosed smoking-related diseases.41
Medicare does not cover out-patient prescription drugs, Medicaid or
state-financed drug plans are only available in some states,42 and
not all employers offer prescription plans. Further, prescription drug plans
may no longer provide coverage for nicotine patch or gum treatment, since each
has been approved for sale without a prescription by the Food and Drug
Administration.43 Greater accessibility through over-the-counter
sales may actually result in reduced accessibility for low-income elderly
smokers.
B. Environmental
Tobacco Smoke
ETS and the Elderly. Each
year, approximately 53,000 Americans die of diseases caused by exposure to ETS.44
ETS consists of both sidestream smoke (smoke emitted from burning tobacco
between puffs by a smoker) and exhaled mainstream smoke (smoke inhaled by a
smoker).45 Exposure to ETS is also commonly known as "passive
smoking." Individuals are passive smokers when, because of close proximity
to a smoker or because of an enclosed environment, they are forced to inhale
ETS. Because of "serious health concerns" regarding ETS, and an
awareness of a plethora of scientific studies finding that exposure to ETS
causes a number of health problems, the EPA recently analyzed and reviewed
available data on the effects of passive smoking. The EPA concluded that, while
more dilute than mainstream smoke, ETS contains essentially the same
cancer-causing and other toxic elements.46 In fact, the EPA found
ETS to be such a danger that it has classified ETS as a "Group A,"
known human carcinogen.47 The report released by the EPA concluded
that passive smoking causes lung cancer48 and other respiratory
disease.49 Studies conducted after the release of the EPA report
have found that exposure to ETS also increases the risk of heart disease.50
Although over 80% of persons over 65
years old do not smoke,51 the nearly 50 million adult Americans who
do smoke make it likely that virtually all Americans, including older persons,
are at high risk of exposure to ETS.52 Exposure to ETS causes health
problems in individuals of all ages. However, it is a particular concern for
older persons, especially those with pre-existing heart and respiratory disease
or disorders such as emphysema, asthma, allergies, or coronary artery disease.53
Exposure to ETS has been found to induce the onset of angina, arrhythmias,54
and the symptoms of bronchial asthma.55 In addition, passive smoking
may cause nonsmoking adults to experience coughing, phlegm production, chest
discomfort, and reduced lung function.56
Work Environment. While most
older persons have retired from working, many remain active members of the work
force. In addition, older individuals as a group are more likely to suffer from
disabilities, including respiratory and cardiovascular disease. For older
working individuals, and those with disabilities in particular, exposure to ETS
in the workplace presents unnecessary health risks and may prevent them from
adequately performing their jobs. Many employers and public facilities are
sensitive to the health risks associated with passive smoking, and have
increased ventilation rates, installed air cleaning systems, and designated
smoking sections to improve the air quality inside their buildings. While these
changes have significantly improved the workplace environment, studies show
that many of these limited smoking policies may not adequately reduce the risk
from exposure to ETS.57 The least costly and most effective way to
eliminate all risk to all individuals continues to be a no-smoking policy.
In recent years, a number of states
have enacted smokefree indoor air restrictions in state government worksites58
and in private worksites.59 While most of these laws allow
substantial discretion for employers to provide smoking areas, there is a clear
movement among employers to attempt to reduce smoking in the work setting. In
addition, after discussions which began in the mid-1980's, the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), in 1994, issued draft
regulations which would require all workplaces to be smokefree, with smoking
only to be permitted in separately ventilated areas.60 The OSHA
proposal, if promulgated as issued, would have Herculean effects on protecting
workers of all ages from ETS, but would also have the side-effect of protecting
consumers who enter these workplaces, including possibly restaurants, bars and
other workplaces.61
Hospitals and Long-Term Care Facilities. As a result of state laws and accreditation requirements, smoking in hospitals has been virtually eliminated. As of 1995, 42 states had passed laws restricting smoking in hospitals.62 In addition, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) requires that smoking by employees, visitors, and patients be prohibited in all hospital buildings, with limited exceptions for patients with physician authorization;63 for instance, a hospital may choose to permit smoking in its psychiatric center if many of its psychiatric patients are addicted to tobacco.64 Smoking policies for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, unfortunately, are lagging behind.65 Previous policy for VA hospitals prohibited in-hospital smoking by patients, staff or visitors.66 However, legislation passed in 1992 now requires VA facilities to establish and maintain either "a suitable indoor area in which patients or residents may smoke" or a smoking area in a separate building that is accessible to patients or residents of the facility.67
The imposition of smoking
restrictions in long-term care facilities seems to be a somewhat more complex
issue. Administrators and residents of long-term care facilities are concerned
about the negative health effects of passive smoking on staff and residents,68
and about the possibility of accidental fire resulting from resident smoking.69
However, the needs and concerns of nonsmoking residents must be balanced
against the needs of smoking residents, raising difficult issues when
considering a smoking ban. For instance, is it ethical to impose a no-smoking
policy on smokers who are likely to be permanent residents in an institution?
Should cognitively impaired residents be required to stop smoking?70
While concerns remain about the
appropriateness of imposing smoking restrictions in long-term care facilities,
acceptance of greater regulation seems to be increasing.71 For
example, Medicare and Medicaid regulations have incorporated by reference the
National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code, which imposes smoking
restrictions in nursing home facilities.72 In addition, the JCAHO
standards for long-term care require that "the organization disseminate[s]
and enforce[s] an organization-wide smoking policy that discourages the use of
smoking materials by patients/residents."73 If long-term care
facilities do permit smoking, they must institute policies that "minimize
to the greatest extent possible the use of smoking materials, and confine
allowed smoking to a designated location(s) that is separated from nonsmoking
patients/residents."74
Other Facilities Serving the
Elderly. Millions of older persons live in or utilize facilities which
provide specialized services for their care, such as continuing care retirement
communities, assisted living facilities, public housing for the elderly, Senior
Centers, congregate meals sites, and adult day care facilities. However,
because these facilities are so diverse in their purposes and the nature of
their regulation (if any), there is little uniformity in the approaches these
facilities take to protecting users of the facilities from ETS. The facilities
that are health-related are most likely to ban or restrict smoking, while
facilities such as Senior Centers appear more likely to allow smoking.
Generally, any regulation of these facilities is done through state or local
health department regulations or through local ordinances which apply more
broadly to "public places." However, the lack of any comprehensive
study of these types of facilities makes unclear how and if the health needs of
elders using these facilities are being protected from the affects of ETS. Now
that the clear dangers of ETS are known, particularly for the elderly, issues
of smokefree facilities are especially ripe for action.
Public Places. Public places
commonly frequented by older persons include restaurants, bars, stores and
shops, shopping malls, libraries, theaters, civic centers and arenas, bingo
establishments, etc. Smoking restrictions affecting these locations vary by
state and locality, with some statewide regulation and some handled locally by
ordinances or health department regulations.75 Within the past few
years, the regulation of smoking in public places has become a major
battleground between organizations concerned about the health effects of ETS
and the tobacco industry. Thus far, only infrequently have organizations
representing the elderly been very involved in the efforts to enact measures to
protect the public from ETS in these locations.
The crux of the controversy over
smokefree public places has centered on whether there is any way to protect
persons from the dangers of ETS without having either totally smokefree
facilities or those which allow a smoking area, but only if it is separated from
non-smoking areas and separately ventilated. The tobacco industry has
maintained that smokers should be "accommodated" by having smoking
and non-smoking sections of these facilities, and that these sections need not
be separately ventilated; health experts have maintained that such a proposal
is akin to trying to have a non-chlorinated section of a swimming pool -- it
simply isn't possible. Areas of greatest controversy have been restaurants,
bars, bingo facilities and bowling alleys, whereas theaters, civic centers and
arenas, shopping centers, stores, libraries, etc. have been much less
controversial.
By 1995, 32 states had implemented smoking restrictions in restaurants, 30 in grocery stores, 42 in certain forms of transportation and 23 in enclosed arenas.76 However, many of these statewide laws do not totally ban smoking in these facilities; e.g., only Utah and Vermont completely ban smoking in restaurants, and California bans smoking in restaurants and/or requires separate smoking areas which are separately ventilated.77 Most statewide laws on smokefree facilities state that a certain percentage of the seating in restaurants must be for smoking, or that certain areas must be set aside for smoking in other public facilities. In recent years, increasing numbers of cities/towns have enacted ordinances which specifically require totally smokefree facilities, including restaurants. The major opposition to these laws has come from the tobacco industry, which is particularly strong on the federal and state levels where their lobbying dollars are most effective in influencing public policy.78 One of the major strategies of the tobacco lobby has been to gain passage of statewide laws requiring that public facilities have certain percentages of seating for smokers and for non-smokers (thereby ensuring that facilities are not totally smokefree or separately ventilated), and having these laws preempt stronger local laws.79 As long as public facilities are not smokefree, older persons, especially those with respiratory problems, are at substantial risk of harm from ETS.
In addition to seeking statewide or
local laws requiring smokefree public places, the Americans with Disabilities
Act also provides protection against ETS with respect to these public places
(see discussion infra, section II.A.).
Smoke-free Environments for Children and Grandchildren. Older persons' grandchildren are not immune to the harmful effects of ETS. The EPA has concluded that in children, ETS exposure in the home and elsewhere causes noncancer respiratory diseases and disorders, including pneumonia, bronchitis, colds, flu, and ear infections, resulting in 7,500-15,000 annual hospitalizations.80 In addition, passive smoking increases the severity of asthma in children who have the disease and may cause previously healthy children to develop the disease.81 Aware of the dangers of ETS exposure to children, particularly those children with respiratory problems, courts, in custody proceedings, are increasingly considering parents' smoking activities when determining which parent will be granted custody of their children.82
II. Litigation: ETS and
Smoking-Related Injury
A. Americans with Disabilities Act
Introduction. The aging
process is frequently associated with an increase in disabling conditions.
Certain disabilities, for instance lung and heart disease, are diagnosed more
frequently in older adults than in other individuals.83 As discussed
above, passive smoking by older persons --especially those with preexisting
disease--can result in significant negative health consequences. The risk of
danger can be high enough for some individuals that they are unable to enter
locations such as restaurants or their place of work84. Today, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can be used as a tool to protect the
rights of those individuals.
The general purpose of the ADA is to
eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities. Under the ADA, an
"individual with a disability" includes someone with a "physical
. . . impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life
activities of such individual."85 A "physical
impairment" includes disorders or conditions that affect respiratory or
cardiovascular systems,86 and "major life activities"87
includes breathing, speaking and working.88 Therefore, the ADA may
cover individuals who suffer from asthma, emphysema, cystic fibrosis, chronic
obstructive pulmonary diseases, lung cancer, or who, because of cardiovascular
disease, must avoid exposure to ETS.89
Courts have held that the ADA covers
claims by individuals sensitive to smoke who seek smoking bans,90
and that the determination as to whether an allergy to tobacco smoke is a
disability must be made using a case-by-case analysis applied to all other
impairments.91 The ADA also provides that "nothing in this
[Act] shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied
under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. _ 790 et seq)."92
Courts have found that, under the Rehabilitation Act, asthma,93
cystic fibrosis,94 and hypersensitivity to ETS95 can be
disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act.96 Under the ADA
specifically, courts have found that bronchial asthma97 and cystic
fibrosis98 are disabilities under the ADA.
Once an individual is found to have
an impairment covered by the ADA, the question is "what is a reasonable
accommodation?" The ADA does not define "reasonable
accommodation" and cases interpreting the statute have not articulated a precise
test to determine if an accommodation is reasonable. However "it is clear
that the determination of whether a particular modification is reasonable
involves a fact-specific, case-by-case inquiry that considers, among other
factors, the effectiveness of the modification in light of the nature of the
disability in question and the cost to the organization that would implement
it."99 With respect to smoking, the ADA specifically states
that: "[n]othing in this [Act] shall be construed to preclude the
prohibition of, or the imposition of restrictions on, smoking . . . "100
So while there is no clear definition of "reasonable accommodation,"
it appears that a smoking ban, if reasonable under the circumstances, may be
imposed.
The ADA and Public Accommodations
-- Restaurants. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination based on
disability with respect to the "full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of
public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates
a place of public accommodation."101 As defined in the ADA, the
term "public accommodation" refers to most private businesses,
including hotels, retail stores, movie theaters, bars, offices of health care
providers, libraries, senior citizen centers, spectator sports facilities,
restaurants, and other establishments.102 These covered entities
must "make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures,
when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services,
facilities, privilege, advantages, or accommodations . . . to individuals with
disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications
would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services . . . or accommodations."103
A public accommodation, however, "is not required to take any action that
would result in a fundamental alteration of a service, program, or activity or
would cause undue financial and administrative burdens."104
As discussed above, the ADA does not
define the term "reasonable accommodation" as it applies to entities
covered by Title III. A recent decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
Staron v. McDonald's Corp,105 states that the decision as to what is a
reasonable accommodation, by a public accommodation, is to be made on a
case-by-case basis, and does not rule out the possibility of a complete smoking
ban as a reasonable accommodation.106
In Staron v. McDonald's Corp, the plaintiffs--three children
with asthma and a woman with lupus--sued McDonald's and Burger King
restaurants, alleging discrimination under the ADA and seeking a complete
smoking ban at all of the defendants' restaurants. The plaintiffs' claim was
based on several instances of being unable to enter the defendants' restaurants
because each restaurant was full of tobacco smoke and caused them to experience
breathing problems. They sought a declaratory judgment that the restaurants'
smoking policies were discriminatory under the ADA; an injunction that would
prohibit the restaurants from maintaining policies that would interfere with
plaintiffs' rights under the ADA; and the establishment by the defendants of a
complete smoking ban in all of their facilities.107 The trial court
dismissed the case, finding that a complete smoking ban was not a reasonable
modification, as a matter of law. The Circuit Court reversed the trial court's
decision, and remanded the case. The court specifically stated that whether an
action is a reasonable modification is to be decided by the facts, on a
case-by-case basis "that considers, among other factors, the effectiveness
of the modification in light of the nature of the disability in question and
the cost to the organization that would implement it."108
Therefore, although previous courts that have dealt with the issue of
reasonable modification for a smoke-sensitive disability have not found a total
ban to be necessary, the court saw "no reason why, under the appropriate
circumstances, a ban on smoking could not be a reasonable modification."109
That is, whether a complete smoking ban is a reasonable accommodation is an
issue of fact to decided by a trial.110
ADA and the Workplace. Title
I of the ADA covers private employers, employment agencies, labor
organizations, joint labor-management committees and state and local
governments that have 15 or more employees.111 It prohibits
discrimination against a "qualified individual with a disability,"
with respect to various employment practices, including "hiring,
advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training,
and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment."112
An individual with a disability113 is qualified if he or she is
"an individual with a disability who satisfies the requisite skill,
experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment
position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable
accommodation, can perform the essential function of such position."114
If the claimant is indeed a qualified individual with a disability, the
employer must provide a "reasonable accommodation." Again, what
constitutes a reasonable accommodation varies according to the circumstances
and is decided on a case by case basis. In an ETS case, it may range anywhere
from a change of office location to a complete smoking ban.115
Courts have held that reasonable accommodations may include having separate
smoking areas, no smoking restrooms, fans, and smokeless ashtrays.116
It is the disabled individual's
responsibility to notify the employer of his or her disability, e.g., the
individual must communicate that he or she suffers from a respiratory disorder
and needs to be accommodated. The employer may choose the type of accommodation,
as long as it is effective.117 If an employer fails to provide a
reasonable accommodation to a qualified disabled individual, the employer has
committed prohibited discrimination under the ADA.118 Note, however,
that the employer is not required to provide an accommodation that causes the
employer to suffer "undue hardship."119
While courts have required employers
to accommodate employees found to have a disability based on or aggravated by
exposure to ETS, no court has yet required an employer to impose a complete
smoking ban in its facilities.120 The first ETS case brought under
the ADA to be decided is Harmer v. Virginia Electric and Power Co.121 In Harmer, an
employee sued his employer, a large utilities company, under the ADA, alleging
that employer's failure to create a completely smoke-free environment was a
failure to accommodate his bronchial asthma. While awaiting trial, the
defendant provided smokeless ashtrays, filtration devices, and banned smoking
except in separately ventilated and designated smoking rooms. The Court held
that although the ADA protected Harmer from discrimination for his disability,122
the defendant had provided a reasonable accommodation under which the plaintiff
was able to perform the essential functions of his position, and therefore a
complete smoking ban was not required.123
Although the court in Harmer did not deem a complete smoking ban
to be necessary, it recognized that the plaintiff's bronchial asthma, which is
severely aggravated by tobacco smoke, is a disability covered by the ADA for
which a reasonable accommodation must be made. In this particular instance, the
court felt that a smoking ban was not required; however, the court did not
state that a smoking ban would never be a reasonable accommodation. It is noteworthy
that the defendant in this case was a company with sufficient funds to
implement what can be costly accommodations. In the future, a court may rule
that a less prosperous defendant must implement a no-smoking policy--an
effective and cost-free solution.
In another more recent case, Bell v.
Elmhurst Chicago Stone Co., a claimant brought suit against his former employer
alleging a violation of the ADA. The court found that the claimant's bronchial
asthma substantially limited his ability to breathe, qualifying him as disabled
within the meaning of the ADA. Because his ability to breathe was so limited,
the court also found that he need not show that his ability to work is also
"substantially limited" in order to be covered by the ADA.125
B. Other Approaches
Employees exposed to ETS in the workplace have sued their employers under a great variety of other legal theories, including wrongful discharge, common law negligence, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, the National Labor Relations Act, Title VII, the common law duty to provide a safe workplace,126 workers' compensation acts, unemployment compensation acts, and constitutional law.127 While some claims have been successful, and others unsuccessful, overall the court decisions show an increasing recognition of the dangers of exposure to ETS. Below is a brief review of the legal theories most frequently employed.
State Workers' Compensation Laws.
Generally, state workers' compensation statutes allow individuals to seek
monetary damages for employment related accidents or diseases. In fact, most
plaintiffs seeking monetary damages based on exposure to ETS in the workplace
have sought relief through the states' worker's compensation statutes. Because
laws are state-specific, they vary.
In dealing with a workers'
compensation claim, several courts have held that the severity of ETS exposure
in an office can cause an "accidental injury" under workers
compensation laws.128 In a recent case, for instance, the New York Court
of Appeals found that a claimant's bronchial asthma, aggravated by exposure to
"excessive amounts of secondhand cigarette smoke in a confined work
environment" constituted a compensable accidental injury under the state's
Workers' Compensation Law.129 Courts have found that accidental
injuries may include contracting bronchial asthma, collapsing due to
exacerbation of pre-existing asthmatic conditions, and collapsing due to
allergic reactions to tobacco smoke.130 Other courts, however, have
rejected claims, stating that the injuries were only temporary, since they
healed after the individual was removed from the injuring situation.131
In addition, several courts have found that workers' compensation benefits may
not be granted for a claim of "occupational disease" based on
exposure to ETS.132 Note that a court's analysis of and findings on
the plaintiff's claim for benefits, may depend greatly on whether the claim is
for an accidental injury or an occupational disease.133
Of particular interest is a recent
case in which the husband of a nurse, who worked in the smoke-filled
psychiatric ward of a VA hospital, claimed workers' compensation benefits after
his wife died from lung cancer.134 The husband was awarded these
benefits. This may be the first time worker's compensation benefits have been
granted for a death linked to ETS exposure.135
Common Law. If the state
worker's compensation law does not cover accidental injuries and disease due to
ETS as a matter of law, a plaintiff may also sue an employer under a common law
theory (common law negligence or breach of duty to provide a safe working
environment). In the landmark case Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.,136 the plaintiff, who
was allergic to ETS, sought a smoking ban in her work area.137 The
Superior Court of New Jersey reviewed evidence about the dangers of exposure to
ETS, found that the employer was under a duty to provide safe working
conditions for its employees, and therefore granted the plaintiff's request to
enjoin the employer from allowing employees to smoke within the office area,
except for the lunchroom and lounge, the designated smoking area. Other cases,
however, have found that the "common law does not impose upon an employer
the duty or burden to conform his workplace to the particular needs or
sensitivities of an individual employee."138
Unemployment Compensation.
Still other claimants have sought unemployment compensation benefits based on
ETS exposure. For instance, in Lapham v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Unemployment Comp. Bd.,139 an employee suffered from allergic bronchitis due to
exposure to cigarette smoke in her work area. Because of strong evidence of the
negative health effects of tobacco and the employer's failure to offer the
claimant a reasonable accommodation--compelling her to resign--the court held
that the claimant had a right to receive unemployment compensation benefits.
Other courts have also found that where an employee's medical condition is
aggravated by exposure to ETS or an employee is forced to work in an enclosed
area where other employees are smoking, the employee may be awarded
unemployment compensation.140 However, other courts have not awarded
unemployment compensation benefits when the employee has failed to provide
adequate evidence that exposure to ETS constitutes a health risk.141
C. Class Action Suits
In the past three years, a major new
wave of litigation has confronted the tobacco industry, which has sought to
equalize the balance of power between the plaintiffs and the tobacco companies.
Previously, the tobacco industry's enormous financial resources produced an
imbalance of power which enabled them to outspend and outlast the plaintiffs,
such as in the Cipollone case discussed earlier. In this new wave of
litigation, the plaintiffs are either the government, in the form of attorneys
general or the U.S. Justice Department, or private attorneys who have
substantial financial resources to invest in the litigation.142
Class action suits have been a primary strategy of the private attorneys,
following the legal theories and strategies used in asbestos class action
lawsuits.
In Castano v. American Tobacco
Co. et al,143
a consortium of 60 law firms joined forces to bring the largest nationwide
class action suit ever filed. The suit, against all the major tobacco
companies, was filed on behalf of all the current approximately 50 million
smokers in the United States, seeking damages for the class based on the
tobacco industry's having concealed knowledge that nicotine was addictive and having
manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes to keep smokers addicted. On May 23,
1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously dismissed the case, ruling
that the nationwide class would be too unwieldy to handle.144
However, the plaintiff's attorneys have already filed statewide class action
suits against the tobacco firms in a number of states, including Louisiana,
Maryland, New Mexico and the District of Columbia and expect to file in many
more states, thereby hoping to avoid some of the problems inherent in a
nationwide class.145
In Florida, a private attorney has
filed two major class action suits against the tobacco industry. In Broin v.
The Philip Morris Cos. et al,146 a nationwide class has been
certified consisting of airline flight attendants who are seeking damages for
injuries from second-hand smoke that filled the airlines prior to the advent of
smokefree flights. A second class action suit, by the same attorney, Engle v.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al,147 seeks damages for smoke-related
injuries suffered by all Florida's current and former smokers. The Broin case is expected to go to trial
early in 1997.
While few attorneys have the
resources to take on such class action suits against such a formidable
adversary as the tobacco industry, if the class action route proves successful,
many individuals, wealthy and poor alike, may be eligible for damages.
III. Litigation: Cost Reimbursement
A. Medicaid Suits
"In FY'94, the combined Federal
and state payments under the Medicaid program are estimated to reach $146
billion. Of this total, hospital costs (including psychiatric facilities) will
represent 28% or $41 billion," according to The Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.148 CASA estimated
that one out of five Medicaid hospital days (20%) are associated with substance
abuse,149 which includes tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs, and
that 41% of these days are related to tobacco.150 Thus, in FY'94
alone, tobacco-related diseases of Medicaid beneficiaries accounted for
hospital costs totaling about $3.4 billion. Under their Medicaid programs,
states and the Federal government have been paying billions of dollars every
year for treatment of diseases caused by a product that while legal, if used as
intended by the tobacco industry, ravages and kills its users. This prompted
first Mississippi, then Florida, and now over ten states to sue the major
tobacco companies to recover these costs.151 Mississippi Attorney
General Mike Moore stated very concisely: "This lawsuit is premised on a
simple notion -- you cause the health crisis, you pay for it."152
While each state is proceeding on similar, though slightly different, legal
theories, these are all medical cost reimbursement suits that seek to transfer
the costs of Medicaid-financed medical care from the injured states to the
responsible party, the tobacco industry.153
While the number of states filing
Medicaid cost reimbursement suits continues to grow, on June 19, 1986, Senator
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced Senate bill 1892 which is intended to
encourage even more states to sue the tobacco industry. Since Medicaid is
currently funded by both state and Federal dollars, if states win their suits,
each state would have to return a portion of any damage awards to the Federal
Government. Senator Lautenberg's legislation would allow states to retain 1/3
of the Federal share of the award for use as non-Federal share under the
states' Medicaid programs, designate 1/3 of the Federal share to the National
Institutes of Health trust fund for the purpose of conducting disease research,
and earmark the remaining 1/3 for deficit reduction.
B. Medicare Suits
At this time, no law suits have been
filed against the tobacco industry seeking reimbursement for Medicare
expenditures made for tobacco-related diseases. However, many of the legal
theories being utilized in the Medicaid suits may also have applicability to
Medicare suits. The Justice Department and Department of Health & Human
Services are currently assessing whether to file suit against the tobacco
industry to recover tobacco-related Medicare expenditures.
IV. Conclusion
Since modern cigarettes were
introduced in 1913, millions of lives have been lost and billions of health
care dollars spent as a result of tobacco-related diseases. Tobacco industry
advertising and promotions hooked generation after generation of youth.
Addiction to nicotine held these smokers, too often until tobacco-related
diseases snuffed out their lives in their later years. Now, the evidence mounts
almost daily showing that the tobacco industry knowingly marketed products that
they knew were addictive and lethal to smokers and non-smokers alike.154
Because so many older
Americans--both smokers and non-smokers--are victims of tobacco and ETS related
diseases, tobacco is an older person's issue. For too long, the innocent victims
have suffered, and the perpetrators of the harm have simply reaped the profits
of their deadly products. The personal and health care cost issues related to
tobacco and older Americans cannot afford to be ignored any longer.
This article has been intended to provide background information on legal issues relating to tobacco and the elderly and to serve as a catalyst for action by the legal community. Public policy remedies are now available to protect non-smokers from ETS and to assist smokers in quitting. Litigation strategies are evolving daily to protect potential victims and to provide restitution to past and current victims of tobacco-related diseases. It remains for the legal community in both the public and private bar to address these issues on behalf of older Americans.
___________________________________________________________________
* Saidy Barinaga-Burch, J.D., is
a staff attorney at The Center for Social Gerontology, and James A. Bergman,
J.D., is Co-Director of The Center for Social Gerontology, located in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. They can be contacted by phone (734-665-1126), fax (734-665-2971),
or e-mail (tcsg@tcsg.org).
1Regulations
Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco
Products to Protect Children and Adolescents, 60 Fed. Reg. 41,313 (1995) (to be
codified at 21 C.F.R. pts. 801, 803, 804, 897) (proposed Aug. 11, 1995).
2David E. Nelson et
al., Trends in Cigarette Smoking Among US Adolescents, 1974 Through 1991, 85
AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 34 (1995).
3Approximately 15% of
men and 12% of women aged 65 and over are smokers; or, about 4 million out of
31 million persons. About 28% of men and women between 50 and 64 are smokers;
or, over 10 million out of 36 million persons. See Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 43 MORBIDITY
AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 926 (Dec. 23, 1994) [hereinafter Dec. 23 MMWR]. See
also Barbara K. Rimer & C. Tracy Orleans, Older Smokers, in NICOTINE
ADDICTION: PRINCIPLES AND MANAGEMENT 385 (C.Tracy Orleans & John Slade,
eds., 1993).
4U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, PREVENTING TOBACCO USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE A REPORT OF THE
SURGEON GENERAL (1994) [introductory letter from Secretary of HHS Donna
Shalala].
5Stanton A. Glantz
& William W. Parmley, Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Epidemiology,
Physiology, and Biochemistry, 83 CIRCULATION 1 (1991). See also, James L.
Repace & Alfred H. Lowrey, An Enforceable Indoor Air Quality Standard for
Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace, 13 RISK ANALYSIS 463, 463-4
(1993).
6 OFFICE ON SMOKING
AND HEALTH, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, STATE TOBACCO CONTROL
HIGHLIGHTS 1996 112 (1996).
7Joseph Califano, The
Impact of Substance Abuse, 4 Tobacco Control, Autumn 1995 (Supp. 2), at S20.
8Id.
9Adam Clymer,
Addiction Center Says Tobacco's Hospital Costs Will Imperil Medicare, N. Y.
TIMES, May 17, 1994, at A14; Medicare's Big Cigarette Burn, N. Y. TIMES, May
18, 1994, at A-18.
10CENTER ON ADDICTION
AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, THE COST OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TO
AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM -- REPORT 2: MEDICARE HOSPITAL COSTS 1 (1994).
11ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPIRATORY HEALTH EFFECTS OF PASSIVE SMOKING: LUNG CANCER
AND OTHER DISORDERS 5-68 (1992) [hereinafter EPA REPORT].
12Id. at 6-31.
13Id. at 7-70.
14Glantz & Parmley,
supra note 5. See also Repace & Lowrey, supra note 5, at 463-464.
15The first instance
of the tobacco industry ever making payments in response to a lawsuit by
aggrieved smokers came when Liggett & Myers agreed to settle both a major
class action suit, Castano v. American Tobacco Co. et al., 84 F.3d 734 (5th
Cir. 1996), and suits brought by five states to recover Medicaid costs incurred
to cover treatment of tobacco-related diseases. In this settlement, entered
into on March 12, 1996, Liggett & Myers broke ranks with the other major
tobacco industry defendants, possibly as a business tactic to assist the major
shareholder in Liggett in his takeover attempt (later, unsuccessful) of R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco. The settlement is expected to cost Liggett over $50 million
over 25 years.
The second instance in which the tobacco industry may actually pay is the
$750,000 judgment awarded by a Jacksonville, Florida jury to Grady Carter, a
66-year-old lung cancer victim who had smoked for 44 years. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco has appealed the August 9, 1996 decision, so it remains uncertain
whether this will become the first such judgment the tobacco industry will pay.
See Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., No. 95-934CA (4th Cir. Ct.
Fla., Aug. 9, 1996).
16Rose Cipollone filed
suit against three tobacco companies in 1983 for damages for misrepresenting
the risks of smoking; she died in 1984 at the age of 58, of lung cancer caused
by smoking one to two packs a day for over 40 years. In 1988, a jury, for the
first time ever, awarded damages to the plaintiff. The case was appealed and,
ultimately, heard by the U.S. Supreme Court (Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 60
U.S.L.W. 4703 , June 24, 1992), which remanded it to the Federal District Court
for retrial. In 1993, just months before the scheduled retrial, the case was
dropped because the plaintiffs law firm simply ran out of funds to continue the
action. See supra note 15, for a brief discussion of the Carter case, No.
95-934CA (4th Cr. Ct. Fla., Aug. 9, 1996). See also Associated Press, Stricken
Smoker Awarded $750,000, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 10, 1996, at A1.
17As stated above,
about 14 million current smokers are aged 50 and over. The Centers for Disease
Control estimates that in 1993, about 46 million adult Americans were smokers.
See Dec. 23 MMWR, supra note 3, at 925.
18See, e.g., UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF SMOKING
CESSATION, (1990) [hereinafter SMOKING CESSATION]; Cindy. L. Jajich et al.,
Smoking and Heart Disease Mortality in the Elderly, 252 JAMA 2831 (1984); R. L.
Rogers et al., Abstention from Cigarette Smoking Improves Cerebral Perfusion
Among Elderly Chronic Smokers, 253 JAMA 2970 (1985); Smoking Cessation Offers
Significant Benefits for Older Adults, GERIATRICS, May 1992, at 91; and C.
Tracy Orleans et al., Long-Term Psychological and Behavioral Consequences and
Correlates of Smoking Cessation, in THE CONSEQUENCES OF SMOKING: A REPORT OF
THE SURGEON GENERAL (1990).
19See, e.g., SMOKING
CESSATION, supra note 18; U.S. PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE, GUIDE TO
CLINICAL PREVENTIVE SERVICES, (1989).
20Helen H. Schauffler
& Michael D. Parkinson, Health Insurance Coverage for Smoking Cessation
Services, 20 HEALTH EDUC. Q. 187 (Summer 1993); Robert M. Kaplan et al., Marshaling
the Evidence for Greater Regulation and Control of Tobacco Products: A Call for
Action, 17 ANNALS BEH. MED. 10 (1995).
21 Schauffler &
Parkinson, supra note 20, at 189.
22Id. at 187.
23Social Security Act,
_ 1905(a)(13), 42 U.S.C.A. _ 1396d(a)(13) (West Supp. 1996). See Schauffler
& Parkinson, supra note 20, at 189.
24Social Security Act,
_ 9501, 42 U.S.C.A. _ 1396d (West 1996). See Schauffler & Parkinson, supra
note 20, at 189.
2542 U.S.C.A. _ 1395y
(West Supp. 1996).
26See Schauffler &
Parkinson, supra note 20, at 189; Pearl S. German et al., Extended Coverage for
Preventive Services for the Elderly: Response and Results in a Demonstration
Population, 85 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 379 (1995); Lynda C. Burton et al.,
Preventive Services for the Elderly: Would Coverage Affect Utilization and
Costs under Medicare? 85 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 387 (1995).
27Kaplan et al., supra
note 20, at 10.
28As used here,
"managed care organizations" refers to the full range of models
available, including various types of health maintenance organizations,
preferred provider organizations, physician-hospital organizations, etc.
29Charles Marwick,
Health Plan Accountability Still a Long-term Goal, 276 JAMA 10 (1996).
30Note that most
elderly Medicaid beneficiaries are also eligible for Medicare. For a discussion
of dual eligibility, see ROBERT KANE ET AL., MANAGED CARE HANDBOOK FOR THE
AGING NETWORK 68 (1996).
31Id. at 55. See also
Jane E. Sisk et al., Evaluation of Medicaid Managed Care, 276 JAMA 50 (1996).
32Schauffler &
Parkinson, supra note 20, at 188.
33John M. Pinney,
Review of the Current Status of Smoking Cessation in the USA: Assumptions and
Realities, TOBACCO CONTROL, Autumn 1995 (Supp. 2), at S12 (citing to GROUP
HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, HMO INDUSTRY PROFILE (1993)).
34Id.
35Id.
36For an excellent
discussion of the barriers to coverage of smoking cessation services and policy
and practice recommendations, see Schauffler & Parkinson, supra note 20, at
185-206.
37See COMMIT Research
Group, Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT): II. Changes
in Adult Cigarette Smoking Prevalence, 85 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 193 (1995);
Malcolm Law & Jin Ling Tang, An Analysis of the Effectiveness of interventions
Intended to Help People Stop Smoking, 155 ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MED. 1933
(1995).
38See C. TRACY ORLEANS
ET AL., FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER, SMOKING PATTERNS AND QUITTING MOTIVES,
BARRIERS AND STRATEGIES AMONG OLDER SMOKERS AGED 50-74. A REPORT FOR THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS (December 1990); Barbara K. Rimer et al., The
Older Smoker: Status, Challenges and Opportunities for Intervention, 97 CHEST
547 (1990).
39U.S. SENATE SPECIAL
COMMITTEE ON AGING ET AL., AGING AMERICA TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS 41 (1991 ed.).
40See, e.g., C. Tracy
Orleans et al., Use of Transdermal Nicotine in a State-Level Prescription Plan
for the Elderly, 271 JAMA 601 (1994).
41Schauffler &
Parkinson, supra note 20, at 188.
4242 U.S.C.A. _
1396d(a)(12) (West Supp. 1996).
43 Additional concerns
about the approval of over-the-counter sales of the nicotine patch and/or gum
include the possibility that these products will not be used as directed
because of lack of involvement by a physician or other health care professional
in individuals' cessation attempts. For instance, consumers who use these
products without guidance may be unaware that smoking while using these
products can lead to a nicotine overdose, causing serious symptoms such as
palpitations, nausea or vomiting.
44Glantz &
Parmley, supra note 5.
45EPA REPORT, supra
note 11, at 1-6.
46 Id. at 1-2.
47ETS was classified
as a Group A carcinogen because epidemiologic studies have demonstrated a
causal connection between exposure to ETS and cancer. Id. at 1-4.
48Approximately 3,000
deaths due to lung cancer each year in the United States are attributed to ETS.
Id. at 1-4.
49Id. at 1-4,5. See also James L. Repace, Risk Management of Passive Smoking at Work and at Home, 13 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 763, 784 (1994).
50See Stanton A.
Glantz & William W. Parmley, Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Mechanisms
and Risks, 273 JAMA 1047 (1995).
51CENTERS FOR DISEASE
CONTROL AND PREVENTION, 45 MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 581, 589 (July
12, 1996) [hereinafter July 12 MMWR].
5234Id. at 588; EPA
REPORT, supra note 11, at 2-2.
53Harald Kritz et al.,
Passive Smoking and Cardiovascular Risk, 155 ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 1942
(1995); Xiping Xu & Baoluo Li, Exposure-Response Relationship Between
Passive Smoking and Adult Pulmonary Function, 151 AM. J. RESPIRATORY AND
CRITICAL CARE MED. 41-46 (1995); Glantz & Parmley, supra note 5, at 4.
54Kritz et al, supra
note 53, at 1942.
55Barbara K. Rimer,
Smoking Among Older Adults: The Problems, Consequences and Possible Solutions,
in BACKGROUND PAPERS, SURGEON GENERAL'S WORKSHOP ON HEALTH PROMOTION AND AGING
3 (1988).
56EPA REPORT, supra
note 11, at 1-6.
57Repace, supra note
49, at 766-784.
58As of December 1,
1995, 7 states prohibited smoking in state government worksites, 2 states
required designated smoking areas with separate ventilation, 32 required or
allowed designated smoking areas, and 10 states had no restrictions. STATE
TOBACCO CONTROL HIGHLIGHTS 1996, supra note 6, at 122.
59As of December 1,
1995, no states prohibited smoking in private worksites, but one state
(California) required that private worksites, which allowed smoking, to have
designated smoking areas with separate ventilation, while 20 other states
either required or allowed private worksites to have designated smoking areas.
Id., at 122.
6059 Fed Reg. 15,968 -
16,039 (1994) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. __ 1910, 1915, 1926, 1928).
61The public comment
period on the OSHA rule closed on Feb. 9, 1996, but it is uncertain when the
final rule will be issued. The tobacco industry mounted a massive campaign
opposing the rule and is virtually certain to challenge any OSHA rule in court.
62CENTERS FOR DISEASE
CONTROL AND PREVENTION, 44 MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 1, 3 (November
3, 1995) [hereinafter Nov. 3 MMWR].
63Thomas W. Jaeger,
Smoke-Free Environments Protect Resident Rights, Promote Safety, PROVIDER, Nov.
1993, at 45.
64See Hall v. Hackley
Hosp., 532 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (holding that because of the
special needs of psychiatric patients, hospital was not required to impose a
smoking ban as requested by employee). See also Arbogast v. Peterson, 631
N.E.2d 673 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 1993) (holding that a state psychiatric
hospital's no-smoking policy did not violate patients' equal protection
rights).
65See Anne M. Joseph,
Is Congress Blowing Smoke at the VA? 272 JAMA 1215 (1994).
66See Anne M. Joseph
& Patricia J. O'Neil, THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SMOKE-FREE POLICY,
267 JAMA 87 (1992); U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, IMPLEMENTATION OF
SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENTS FOR PATIENTS IN VA HEALTH CARE FACILITIES (1990).
6738 U.S.C.A. _ 1715
(West 1995) [note].
68In one study of
nursing homes, nonsmoking residents of VA nursing homes had filed complaints
about ETS exposure in 23% of the nursing homes. Gary Kochersberger &
Elizabeth C. Clipp, Resident Smoking in Long-Term Care Facilities -- Policies
and Ethics, 111 PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS 55 (1996).
69Smoking materials
cause approximately 42 percent of fire-related injuries in long-term care
facilities. Jaieger, supra note 63, at 45.
70Paul Drinka, Nursing
Home Resident Who Are Unsafe Smokers and Require Supervision While Smoking,
[Letter] 42 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRIC SOCIETIES 689 (1994).
71Kochersberger &
Clipp, supra note 68, at 69.
72See 42 C.F.R. _
483.70 (incorporating by reference the 1985 edition of the National Fire
Protection Association's Life Safety Code); NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, _
31-4.4 (1985 ed.) (smoking regulations for health care occupancies). See also
Jaeger, supra note 63, at 45.
73Kochersberger &
Clipp, supra note 68, at 69-70 (citing to THE JOINT COMMISSION FOR THE
ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS, ACCREDITATION MANUAL FOR LONG TERM
CARE (1994)).
74Id. at 70.
75See STATE TOBACCO
CONTROL HIGHLIGHTS 1996, supra note 6. See also Americans for Nonsmokers'
Rights, Protecting Nonsmokers From Secondhand Smoke (July 8, 1993).
76Nov. 3 MMWR, supra
note 62, at 14-15.
77STATE TOBACCO
CONTROL HIGHLIGHTS 1996, supra note 6, at 123.
78See, e.g., Tobacco
Strikes Back, MOTHER JONES, May-June 1996, at 32-58.
79As of December 1,
1995, 18 states had statewide laws which preempted localities from enacting
stronger smokefree indoor air laws. See STATE TOBACCO CONTROL HIGHLIGHTS 1996,
supra note 6, at 121.
80EPA REPORT, supra
note 11, at 1-5. See also FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER, CLEAR HORIZONS GUIDE, 3
(1994).
81EPA REPORT, supra
note 11, at 1-5.
82See, e.g., Unger v.
Unger, 644 A.2d 691 (N.J. Super.Ch. 1994). See also Mireille O. Butler,
Parental Autonomy Versus Children's Health Rights: Should Parents Be Prohibited
from Smoking in the Presence of Their Children? 74 WASH. U. L. Q. 223 (1996).
83J. Kenneth L. Morse
& Sharon Rennert, Older Americans and the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990: Title I, BEST PRACTICE NOTES ON DELIVERY OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO OLDER
PERSONS, March 1994, at 2.
84Mark A. Gottlieb et
al., Second-Hand Smoke and the ADA: Ensuring Access for Persons with Breathing
and Heart Disorders, 13 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 635, 636 (1994).
8542 U.S.C.A. _
12102(2)(A) (West 1995); 29 C.F.R. _ 1630.2(g)(1) (1995). See also 29 C.F.R. _
1630.2(j) (defining "substantially limits").
8629 C.F.R. _
1630.2(h)(1) (1995).
8729 C.F.R. _
1630.2(i) (1995).
88See Homeyer v.
Stanley Tulchin Assocs., Inc., No. 95-C4439 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 1995); American
Bar Association, Commission on the Mentally Disabled, 20 MENTAL AND PHYSICAL
DISABILITY LAW REPORTER 65 (1996. See also Gupton v. Com. of Va., 14 F.3d 203
(4th Cir. 1994).
89Gottlieb et al,
supra note 84, at 640.
90Emery v. Caravan of
Dreams, 879 F. Supp. 640 (N.D. Texas 1995) (cystic fibrosis); Staron v.
McDonald's Corp., 51 F.3d 353, 355 (2nd Cir. 1995) (asthma and lupus). See also
Bell v. Elmhurst Chicago Stone Company, 919 F. Supp. 308 (N.D. Illinois 1996).
91Staron v. McDonald's
Corp, 51 F.3d 353, 357 (2nd Cir. 1995).
9242 U.S.C.A. _
12201(a) (West 1995).
93Carter v. Tisch, 822
F.2d 465 (4th Cir. 1987); Pletten V. Merit Systems Protection Board, 908 F.2d
973 (6th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1053, reh'g denied, 499 U.S. 913
(1991).
94Gerben v. Holsclaw,
692 F. Supp. 557, 563 (E.D. Pa. 1988).
95Vickers v. Veterans
Administration, 549 F. Supp. 85 (W.D. Wash. 1982); But see Gupton v. Com. of
Va., 14 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 1994) (to establish that allergy to tobacco smoke
substantially limited the major life activity of working, claimant must show
that allergy "foreclose[d] generally [her opportunity to obtain] the type
of employment involved"); Homeyer v. Stanley Tulchin Assocs., Inc., No. 95
C 4439 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 1995); Peck v. Department of Human Rights, 600
N.E.2d 79, 82 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992), appeal denied, 610 N.E.2d 1267 (1993).
96Gottlieb et al.,
supra note 84, at 642.
97Bell v. Elmhurst
Chicago Stone Co., 919 F. Supp. 308 (N.D.Ill 1996); Harmer v. Virginia Electric
and Power Co., 831 F. Supp. 1300 (E.D. Va. 1993).
98Emery v. Caravan of
Dreams, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 640 (N.D.Tex. 1995).
99Staron v. McDonald's
Corp., 51 F.3d at 356.
10042 U.S.C.A. _
12201(b) (West 1995). Interpretive Guidance for 28 C.F.R. _ 36.210 states:
"Section 36.210 restates the clarification in section 501(b) of the Act
that the Act does not preclude the prohibition of, or imposition of
restrictions on, smoking. Some commenters argued that _ 36.210 does not go far
enough, and that the regulation should prohibit smoking in all places of public
accommodation. The reference to smoking in section 501 merely clarifies that
the Act does not require public accommodations to accommodate smokers by
permitting them to smoke in places of public accommodations." 28 C.F.R.
Pt. 36, App. B (1995).
10142 U.S.C.A. _
12182(a) (West 1995).
10242 U.S.C.A. _
12181(7) (West 1995); 28 C.F.R. _ 36.104 (1995).
10342 U.S.C.A. _
12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (West 1995); 28 C.F.R. _ 36.302(a) (1995).
10428 C.F.R. _ 36.302
(1995).
10551 F.3d 353 (2nd
Cir. 1995).
106But see Emery v.
Caravan of Dreams, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 640, 643-4 (N.D. Texas).
107Staron v.
McDonald's Corp., 51 F.3d 353 (2nd Cir. 1995) at 355.
10851 Fed at 356. See 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. B (1995): "[T]he determination as to whether allergies to cigarette smoke ... are disabilities covered by the regulation must be made using the same case-by-case analysis that is applied to all other physical or mental impairments."
10951 F.3d 353 at 357.
110On the same day the
district court dismissed the case, McDonald's announced a complete no-smoking
policy in all of its corporate-owned-and-operated restaurants.
11142 U.S.C.A. __
12111(2), 12111(5)(A) (West 1995).
11242 U.S.C.A. _
12112(a) (1995); 29 C.F.R. _ 1630.4 (West 1995).
113See supra notes
85-98 and accompanying text. But see Homeyer v. Stanley Tulchin Assocs., Inc.,
No. 95 C 4439 (N.D. Ill, Nov. 17, 1995) (holding that claimant's sensitivity to
tobacco smoke in her work place was not a disability because the smoke allergy
did not substantially limit her ability to find work as a typist); Gupton v. Commonwealth
of Virginia, 14 F.3d 203 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 59 (1994).
11429 C.F.R. _
1630.2(m) (1995); see 29 C.F.R. _ 1630.3 for exceptions to this definition. See
Morse & Rennert, supra note 83, for an excellent discussion of Title I of the
ADA.
115 John C. Fox, An Assessment of the Current Legal Climate concerning Smoking in the Workplace, 13 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 591, 601 (1994).
116Id. See, e.g.,
Harmer v. Virginia Electric and Power Co., 831 F. Supp. 1300 (E.D. Va. 1993)
117See Interpretive
Guidance for 29 C.F.R. _ 1630.9 (1995) (Pt. 1630, App.) (provides guidance
regarding determining an appropriate reasonable accommodation).
11829 C.F.R. _ 1630.9
(1995).
11929 C.F.R. _
1630.15(d) (1995).
120Fox, supra note
115, at 601. See Gupton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 14 F.3d 203 (4th Cir.
1994); Parodi v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 690 F.2d 731 (1982).
121Harmer v. Virginia
Electric and Power Co., 831 F. Supp. 1300 (E.D. Va. 1993).
122Id. at 1306.
123Id. See 29 C.F.R.
__ 1630.2(o) (1995), app. 1630.9.
124Bell v. Elmhurst
Chicago Stone Co., 919 F.Supp. 308 (N.D.Ill 1996).
125Id. at 309.
126See McCarthy v.
Dep't of Social & Health Servs., 730 P.2d 681, 685 (Wash.App. 1986); Shimp
v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 368 A.2d 408 (N.J. Super. Ct., Ch. Div.
1976).
127Christine W. Lewis
and Sara J. Bliss, Are You Treating Your Employees Like Prisoners? Employers'
Liability for Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 73 MICHIGAN BAR JOURNAL 416 (1994).
128Christian G. Krupp,
Warning! Working in a Smoke Filled Room is Dangerous to Your Health: Protecting
Michigan Workers from Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, 7 COOLEY L. REV.
509, 517-518 (1990). But see Hennly v. Richardson, 444 S.E.2d 317 (Ga. 1994),
aff'd 448 S.E.2d 91 (Ga.App. 1994).
129Johannesen v.
N.Y.C. Dept. of Housing, 638 N.E.2d 981, 982 (N.Y. 1994).
130See, e.g., Schober
v. Mountain Bell Telephone, 630 P.2d 1231 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981) (granting
workers' comp benefits to an employee who suffered an allergic reaction to
tobacco smoke).
131See, e.g., Ate
Fixture Fab v. Wagner, 559 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).
132Fox, supra note
115, at 607. See, e.g., Mack v. County of Rockland, 525 N.E.2d 744 (1988).
133See, e.g., Mack v.
County of Rockland, 525 N.E.2d 744 (1988) (holding that aggravation of a
preexisting eye disorder as a result of exposure to ETS was not an occupational
disease).
134In re Wiley, No.
A9-365951 (U.S. Dep't of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,
December 9, 1995). See Julie Gannon Shoop, Widower Gets Death Benefits in
Secondhand Smoke Case, TRIAL, March 1996, at 14-15.
135Shoop, supra note
134, at 14-15.
136368 A.2d 408
(1976).
137 Id. at 416. See
also McCarthy v. Dept. of Social and Health Services, 759 P.2d 351 (Wash. 1988)
(en banc).
138Gordon v. Raven
Systems, 462 A.2d 10, 15 (D.C. Ct. App. 1983).
139 519 A.2d 1101
(Pa.Cmwlth. 1987).
140Fox, supra note
115, at 621. See, e.g., McCrocklin v. Employment Dev. Dep't., 205 Cal. Rptr.
156 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984); Alexander v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 163
Cal. Rptr. 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
141Fox, supra note
115, at 620. See, e.g., Billman v. Sumrall, 464 So.2d 382 (La. Ct. App. 1985);
Ruckstuhl v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 426 A.2d 719 (Pa. Commw.
Ct. 1981).
142For more on this,
see Richard Daynard & Graham Kelder, Jr., Medical Cost Reimbursement Suits
as a Cancer Control and Public Health Strategy 1-20 (1995) (unpublished paper);
Richard Daynard, The Third Wave of Tobacco Products Liability Cases, TRIAL,
November 1994, at 34; Richard Daynard, Smoking Out the Enemy: New Developments
in Tobacco Litigation, TRIAL, November 1993, at 16..
143Castano v. American
Tobacco Co. et al., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996).
144Id.; Glenn Collins,
Huge Anti-Tobacco Lawsuit is Rejected by Appeals Court, N. Y. TIMES, May 24,
1996, at 1.
145Myron Levin &
Henry Weinstein, Lawyers to Appeal Tobacco Ruling, L.A. TIMES, June 19, 1996,
at D-2.
146641 So.2d 888 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 1994).
147672 So.2d 39 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 1996).
148Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, THE COST OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TO
AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM -- REPORT 1: MEDICAID HOSPITAL COSTS 11 (1993).
149Id. at 25.
150Id. at 26.
151The states which
had filed or announced suits by July, 1996 included: Mississippi, Florida,
Minnesota, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Louisiana, New Jersey, Arizona,
Connecticut, Texas, and Maryland. The City of San Francisco and the County of
Los Angeles also have filed suits. See Agency for Health Care Admin., et al. v.
Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., et al., No. 86,213, 1996 Fla. LEXIS
1057 (Sup. Ct. of Fla. June 27, 1996) (upholding most provisions of the
Medicaid Third Party Liability Act and, thereby, allowing the state's Medicaid
suit against the tobacco companies to proceed). See also State of Minnesota and
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., No.
C1-95-1324, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 497 (Sup. Ct. of Minn., July 25, 1996) (affirming
the standing of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota to pursue claims
against the tobacco companies for violations of deceptive trade practices,
false advertising, and unlawful trade practices statutes).
152From page 2 of the
press release of Attorney General Mike Moore on May 23, 1994, upon the filing
of the Mississippi law suit.
153See also Richard
Daynard & Graham Kelder, Jr., Medical Cost Reimbursement Suits as a Cancer
Control and Public Health Strategy 1-20 (1995) (unpublished paper).
154See STANTON GLANTZ, ET AL, THE CIGARETTE PAPERS (1996); RICHARD KLUGER, ASHES TO ASHES (1996); PHILIP HILTS, SMOKESCREEN (1996).