personal digital assistant

(redirected from PDA Case)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia.

assistant

 [ah-sis´tant]
one who aids or helps another; an auxiliary.
dental assistant see dental assistant.
first assistant a physician, physician's assistant, nurse practitioner, surgical technologist, or specially trained registered professional nurse who directly assists the surgeon by handling tissue, providing exposure, using surgical instruments and equipment, suturing, and providing hemostasis.
occupational therapy assistant see occupational therapy assistant.
personal digital assistant (PDA) a small computer used to organize and easily access information; for example, clinical guidelines can be downloaded to this device.
physician assistant see physician assistant.
second assistant an individual who assists the surgeon or first assistant during an operative procedure by carrying out technical tasks such as holding retractors; this individual does not cut, clamp, or suture tissue. This role may be performed at the same time as the scrub role.
surgeon assistant (SA) see surgeon assistant.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

per·son·al dig·i·tal as·sis·tant

(PDA) (pĕr'sŏn-ăl dij'i-tal ā-sis'tănt)
A palmtop computer that connects to the Internet.
Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012

personal digital assistant

,

PDA

A handheld or pocket-sized computer used to store information or communicate with others.
Medical Dictionary, © 2009 Farlex and Partners
References in periodicals archive ?
(156) Perhaps that is why the court, surely aware of the newly enacted ADAAA, stopped short of announcing a categorical bar on the use of ADA comparators in PDA cases.
Thus, like intersectionality theory, disruption theory counsels for the use of ADA comparators in PDA cases. If courts were to find that ADA comparators were barred in PDA cases, pregnant workers would rapidly become the only employees who could be fired for impairments akin to temporary disabilities.
In Young, the Supreme Court signaled that courts should accept a broader range of evidence in PDA cases: instead of focusing on narrow distinctions between employees, the Court emphasized the importance of considering employer policies as a whole, as well as the practical effects those policies have on workers.
(235) In this way, this emerging approach echoes many of the well-established PDA cases emphasizing equal treatment.
The next section takes a step back to explore how the PDA cases fit into broader trends in employment discrimination law, and delves into the gender ideology behind the developments in the PDA case law.
The PDA cases are an increasingly sorry lot, including cases like the recent Fourth Circuit ruling in Young v.
In an odd confluence of poorly-reasoned PDA cases and a well-intentioned congressional override of restrictive judicial interpretations of the ADA, recent developments in disability law are now exacerbating the problems created by the PDA cases discussed above.
The trends discussed above in the PDA case law are particularly harmful to lower-wage and economically vulnerable women.
The Arizanovska decision thus further entrenches the obliteration of clause two in the recent PDA case law.
(353) Ideally, the lower courts would simply follow the Supreme Court's directive in Johnson Controls to "do no more than hold that the PDA means what it says." (354) Recent trends in the PDA case law, however, are not encouraging.