Gopen v. The Regents of the University of California

Americans with Disabilities Act violations

Central District

U.S. District Judge James V. Selna

Defense Lawyers: Margaret M. “Peggy” Holm, M. Christopher Hall, Sedgwick LLP (former)

Plaintiff’s Lawyers: Aaron D. Gopen, Law Offices of Aaron D. Gopen

It didn’t take long for a jury to reject deaf plaintiff Justin Gopen’s claim that he was discriminated against at a top UC medical institution when they didn’t provide him with an in-person sign language interpreter.

Deliberating five hours after a five-day trial, the jury sided with the Regents of the University of California, which operates UC Irvine Medical Center. Gopen v. The Regents of the University of California, 15-CV02062 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 11, 2015).

Covert video surveillance of Gopen showed him riding his bike in traffic and effectively communicating with pen and paper at a Garden Grove motel — undermining his claim that he suffered debilitating vision loss as a direct result of delayed care at the center in September 2015.

The videos also revealed that Gopen was battling drug addiction. The medical center said the initial eye infection was likely caused by illicit drug use and may have been the catalyst for the antisocial behavior he attributed to his vision problems.

“By the end of the case, it was very clear that the plaintiff was not being candid with the jurors about his abilities,” lead defense attorney Margaret M. “Peggy” Holm said.

Gopen was represented by his brother, Aaron Gopen, who left a position as a corporate counsel to launch a practice dedicated to helping hearing-impaired people with legal issues.

According to Holm, Gopen brought the case to federal court specifically to deal with what he felt were violations of state and federal statutes related to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. As the facts were presented, Holm felt the plaintiff was really describing medical malpractice claims.

The plaintiff’s attorney did not return requests for comment. Gopen intended to file an appeal, but counsel for both sides ended up resolving the case outside the courtroom, Holm said.

“The law was interpreted properly by the jury,” Holm said. She added that the discrimination statutes require equal care, not specific care requirements such as mandating the use of a sign-language interpreter.

— Lila Seidman