Washington
Lawyers’ Committee and Sutherland File Suit to Protect
Deaf Patients’ Rights
Washington
(January 11, 2005)—For the first time, deaf patients
have taken a hospital to court claiming that its provision
of interpreters through inadequate video conferencing
technology does not provide them with effective communication
in critical medical situations. The Washington Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan LLP today filed a civil rights
lawsuit on behalf of seven deaf individuals who sought
treatment at Laurel Regional Hospital in Laurel, Md.,
and despite their specific and repeated requests were
denied in-person qualified sign language interpreter
services. The plaintiffs allege that
they were instead provided with inadequate video interpreting,
cryptic notes or, most often, no communication at
all.
The
lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland alleges that the plaintiffs were denied
the benefit of effective communication with physicians
and health care providers at Laurel Hospital, were
unable to provide informed consent to treatment, were
denied the opportunity to participate in their treatment,
and were denied the full benefit of the health care
services provided by Laurel Hospital, in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) and
other laws.
The
plaintiffs complain that the Hospital relied principally
on video remote interpreting (VRI), a means of utilizing
a remote interpreter through videoconferencing technology.
However, plaintiffs allege that Hospital staff often
refused to set up the VRI equipment, and that they
were not adequately trained
to set up the equipment correctly or quickly. Moreover,
plaintiffs allege that the equipment used by the Hospital
was difficult to view and insufficiently mobile.
Most important, plaintiffs note that the two-dimensional
nature of video cannot effectively capture sign language,
which is a three-dimensional language.
Elaine
Gardner, Director of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee Disability
Rights Project, says deaf
patients, such as the plaintiffs, should receive the
same level of effective communication provided for
hearing patients. “The ADA is clear – deaf patients
have the right to understand, and be understood by,
their medical providers.”
One
of the seven plaintiffs, Elizabeth Gillespie,
went to Laurel Hospital emergency room on November
1, 2003, to receive treatment for severe abdominal
pain, nausea and vomiting, among other symptoms.
Ms. Gillespie was required to wait hours, denied numerous
requests for an in-person interpreter, and was prepared
for medical tests in a manner that was personally
humiliating, including having a male attendant snap her bra as a means of communicating with her that it needed
to be removed. As with several of the plaintiffs,
the VRI technology, when it was
provided to Ms. Gillespie, proved woefully
inadequate. “This was the last straw for me,” said
Mrs. Gillespie, who said her experience gave her the
incentive to contact the Lawyers’ Committee and bring
this lawsuit.
Under
the ADA, discrimination includes the failure to provide
auxiliary aids and services. The term “auxiliary
aids and services” under the ADA includes “qualified
interpreters” who make “aurally delivered materials
available to individuals with hearing impairments.”
“This
is not an indictment of video interpreting,” says
Lewis S. Wiener, a litigation partner with
Sutherland, who represents the plaintiffs pro bono.
“Rather, the question is whether, based on the facts,
Laurel Hospital’s use of video remote interpreting and its
refusal to provide these individuals with in-person
interpreters meets the requirements of the ADA. In
this case it clearly did not. Laurel Hospital’s failure to provide
effective communication has directly injured and continues
to injure the plaintiffs.”
The
suit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against
Laurel Hospital and an order requiring the hospital
to provide deaf individuals with auxiliary aids and
services necessary for effective communication, including
qualified sign language interpreters, TTY’s and close captioned televisions. The suit also seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees
and costs.
In
addition to Mr. Wiener, Sutherland attorneys David
A. Last and Thomas R. Bundy III
are involved in the matter. All are available to
comment on the case. To view a copy of the complaint
online, please visit www.sablaw.com/file_upload/PR011105.pdf.
The
Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and
Urban Affairs, for over 35 years, has represented
both individuals and groups seeking to vindicate their
civil rights. It has handled over 5,000 civil rights
cases, in employment, housing, public accommodations,
and other aspects of urban life. It represents people
with claims of discrimination based on race, gender,
national origin, disability, age, religion, and sexual
orientation.
Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan is a national law firm known
for solving challenging business problems and resolving
unique legal issues for many of the nation’s largest
companies. Founded in 1924, the firm has grown to
more than 400 lawyers in Atlanta, Austin, Houston,
New York, Tallahassee and Washington. For further
information about the firm, please visit, www.sablaw.com.
###