Facts

Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, asserted claims against her local hospital, relating to denial of access to a sign language interpreter.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff is deaf and has chronic medical needs. She communicates through sign language. Her local hospital refused to provide necessary on-site sign language interpretation services for her while she was receiving treatment at the hospital. Plaintiff was a long-time patient at the hospital, having been treated during several emergency admissions, inpatient hospitalizations, and outpatient appointments. For years, the hospital had provided plaintiff with an on-site language interpreter. In 2014, during an emergency hospitalization, the hospital informed the child's parents that it would no longer provide an interpreter, and that the parents would have to interpret for their daughter during medical encounters. The hospital later proposed the use of a Video Remote Interpreting service, where an interpreter would be provided onscreen from a remote location.

Plaintiff claimed that federal law expressly prohibits a hospital from requiring family members to interpret for a deaf patient absent an emergency. Plaintiff claimed that her individual profile, including her age, medical conditions, cognitive disabilities, and treatment needs, necessitated an on-site interpreter in the room to help her to communicate effectively in the medical setting, such that requiring use of Video Remote Interpreting service was improper. As a result of the denial of the on-site interpreter, the delivery of medical care was compromised.

Plaintiff asserted causes of action for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the California Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and related state law.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The hospital claimed that it had followed applicable disability and anti-discrimination law and that its policy and procedures were within applicable standards of care.

Result

The parties agreed to a settlement that provided plaintiff an action plan that ensures that the hospital would have available an on-site interpreter whenever necessary for her to receive effective communication. The settlement included monetary compensation of $89,000 for the plaintiff's parents and payment of attorney fees.

Other Information

As part of the agreement, plaintiff's counsel agreed to submit written recommendations, based on the National Association of the Deaf's expertise on the subject matter, to improve the hospital's policy for serving its deaf patient population. The hospital agreed to give the recommendations serious consideration.