121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32400311)
1. The Constitutional Right to Community Services:
Ferleger D
J Leg Med; 2020; 40(1):101-114. PubMed ID: 32400311
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Where We are on the Twentieth Anniversary of
Sloan L; Gulrajani C
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2019 Dec; 47(4):408-413. PubMed ID: 31811081
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Taking Choice Seriously in
Bagenstos SR
J Leg Med; 2020; 40(1):5-25. PubMed ID: 32400314
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4.
Kershner S; Goico SW
J Leg Med; 2020; 40(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 32400312
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Realizing the Promise of
Schwartz SJ; Fleischner RD; Schwartz AZ; Stephens EM
J Leg Med; 2020; 40(1):63-100. PubMed ID: 32400309
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Judicial Threats to
Mangan JG; Dennis AL
Psychiatr Serv; 2024 Jun; 75(6):589-593. PubMed ID: 38088039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. CRIPA, Olmstead, and the transformation of the Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board.
Bloom JD
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(3):383-9. PubMed ID: 22960921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Using the Courts to Shape Medicaid Policy: Olmstead v. L.C. by Zimring and Its Community Integration Legacy.
Rosenbaum S
J Health Polit Policy Law; 2016 Aug; 41(4):585-97. PubMed ID: 27127257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Supreme Court to rule on rights of people with disabilities.
Gold S
Caring; 1999 Jul; 18(7):26-7. PubMed ID: 10539554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reflecting on
Lombardo P; Bliss C; Caley S; Gottlieb S; Jamieson S; Roseborough TW; Webster D
J Leg Med; 2020; 40(1):27-44. PubMed ID: 32400308
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Prohibition on assisting a suicide is interference with rights of severely disabled people, UK Supreme Court is told.
Dyer C
BMJ; 2013 Dec; 347():f7589. PubMed ID: 24352939
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The Olmstead decision and the journey toward integration:the evolution of social work responses.
Yong F
J Gerontol Soc Work; 2007; 49(1-2):115-26. PubMed ID: 17804363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Supreme court agrees to define employer.
Vierling LE
Case Manager; 2003; 14(1):30-2. PubMed ID: 12532074
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The ADA and the Supreme Court: a mixed record.
Bagenstos SR
JAMA; 2015 Jun; 313(22):2217-8. PubMed ID: 26057276
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The Americans with Disabilities Act: disabled by court decisions.
Coelho T
Neurology; 2007 May; 68(20):1733-6. PubMed ID: 17502557
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Final priority; National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers. Final priority.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education
Fed Regist; 2013 Jul; 78(138):42868-71. PubMed ID: 23866381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The constitutional right to treatment services for the noncommitted mentally disabled.
Esposito VM
Univ San Francisco Law Rev; 1980; 14(4):675-705. PubMed ID: 11651740
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Arline, Chalk, the Civil Rights Restoration Act, and the AIDS handicap.
Turner R
AIDS Public Policy J; 1988; 3(3):23-30. PubMed ID: 11650099
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Approaches to implementing the Olmstead ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) ruling.
Jackson SR; Hafner G; O'Brien D; Benjamin G
J Law Med Ethics; 2003; 31(4 Suppl):47-8. PubMed ID: 14968621
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The Americans with Disabilities Act: shattered aspirations and new hope.
Thomas VL; Gostin LO
JAMA; 2009 Jan; 301(1):95-7. PubMed ID: 19126814
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
