Disability Rights Advocates
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612

Application To File Amicus Letter; Amicus Letter
Pertaining To Robert Sinaiko, M.D. v. Medical Board
of California, Sacramento Superior Court No. 99CS02275

Dear Judge Robie:

Disability Rights Advocates applies for leave to file the accompanying amicus letter.

Disability Rights Advocates ("DRA") is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest organization exclusively dedicated to advancing the civil rights of people with disabilities. DRA engages in class action and impact litigation on behalf of clients who face discrimination or other violations of civil rights or federal statutory protections. DRA is generally acknowledged to be one of the three leading public interest firms in the country in this area. Attorneys in the firm regularly lecture to local, state, and national legal and professional organizations on the law applicable to persons with disabilities.

Some of the cases involving violations of disability nondiscrimination laws for which Disability Rights Advocates lawyers have been counsel, and which have been certified as class actions include: [long list available on request]

"Amicus curiae presentations assist the court by broadening its perspective on the issues raised by the parties. Among other services, they facilitate informed judicial consideration of a wide variety of information and points of view that may bear upon important legal questions." Bily v. Arthur Young (1992) 3Cal. 4th 370, 405 n.14

Should the Court permit the filing of this amicus letter, Disability Rights Advocates urges the Court to consider the following in reviewing the Medical Board's disciplinary order against Dr. Robert Sinaiko:

  1. Diseases and impairments, such as chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple chemical sensitivity are generally recognized as genuine and serious medical disabilities which are legally protected. For example, entities such impairments are specifically recognized as disabilities by, among other the City of San Francisco and several federal agencies.

  2. Indications are that the incidence of these disabilities is rising.

  3. The experience of Disability Rights Advocates in dealing with its own client base has been that these illnesses can be among the most disabling of all conditions, and can result in life-threatening situations.

  4. There appears to be substantial debate among medical practitioners concerning the causality, development and treatment of these disorders. Medical practitioners, clinician and researchers of good faith and excellent credentials take varying positions on each of these issues.

  5. In a situation such as has arisen in the case of Dr. Robert Sinaiko, it is potentially dangerous for a medical board or any other administrative agency to attempt to preclude physicians from practicing their professions and treating known and recognized disabilities by methods which they in good faith regard as appropriate. Indeed, the effort to d so may implicate federal and state civil rights law specifically designed to protect people with disabilities (including those with multiple chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue syndrome) from failure to provide equal services and other forms of discrimination.

  6. We urge the Court to carefully consider the Medical Board's disciplinary order and take into account the risk of significant limitations to doctor and consumer choice which it appears to pose.

Thank you,

Sid Wolinsky
Director of Litigation