SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AURORA HEALTH CARE UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

Complainant No. 2

7. In January 2016, Aurora employed a urologist at a medical facility located in Waukesha County owned and operated by Aurora.

8. On the afternoon of Friday, January 22, 2016, Complainant No. 2 (who was a resident of a Waukesha area nursing home) and his daughter went to this medical facility for the removal of his catheter. The appointment was listed in Aurora's records as a catheter consult. On the admitting paperwork, complainant's daughter listed her father's infectious disease physician as his primary care doctor.

9. When the Aurora urologist saw Complainant No. 2 in the examination room, he took a full medical history and asked questions about the infectious disease. In response to those questions, the complainant's daughter told the urologist that her father had HIV. After conducting a complete physical examination, the urologist advised against removing the catheter that day and provided a non-discriminatory justification for this recommendation. Specifically, the urologist advised that his usual practice was to remove catheters in the morning so that the patient could be monitored throughout the day in case voiding problems arise. Aurora's written medical record states that the urologist suggested they could plan for a voiding trial on another day.

10. Despite the offer to schedule a voiding trial for another day, the urologist also stated that he was concerned he did not know more about the complainant's HIV status and that he wished to speak with the complainant's infectious disease doctor in order to minimize any transmission risks to the staff during the procedure. In response to the urologist 's concerns, the complainant's daughter advised the urologist that standard precautions—a medically accepted approach to infection control that treats all human blood and certain human body fluids as if they were known to be infectious for HIV and other blood borne pathogens—should eliminate any risk of transmission to the urologist or his staff, but the urologist said that he could not be sure that blood was not in the urine.

11. The catheter was not removed that day. The following week, Complainant No. 2 had his catheter removed at another medical facility.