This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA
Rehabilitation Act

Edward L. Kemper v. Cummings/Mitchell, LLC

Published: Jun. 28, 2008 | Result Date: Dec. 28, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 07CV01272(WBS) Settlement –  $19,499

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Keith D. Cable
(Cable Law, APC)

Christina McLamore

Farah J. Martinez


Defendant

Eric R. Garner

Carl P. Blaine


Facts

Plaintiff Edward Kemper went to the Radiological Associates of Sacramento Medical Group Inc. (RAS) in Folsom, California for two medical appointments. Plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon gave plaintiff a list of medical providers who performed x-rays and MRIs. Plaintiff chose RAS based on its location. RAS leased its property from defendant Cummings/Mitchell LLC.

On Feb. 8, 2007, plaintiff drove to RAS and took his manual wheelchair. Plaintiff emailed an RAS representative when he saw that the disabled parking spots had excessive slopes and were not the spaces closest to the entrance.

On Feb. 22, 2007, plaintiff received an email from RAS informing him that his email had been sent to defendant. Defendant's attorney then contacted the plaintiff regarding a remediation plan.

On March 16, 2007 the plaintiff used his motorized wheelchair during another visit to RAS. He claimed the ramps on the property required him to engage in strenuous activity, which caused him increased pain.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. He also claimed there were improper signs posted at the premises.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the changes plaintiff requested were not required by law and were impracticable. The defendant filed a third-party complaint against RAS and Sierra View Company Inc., the company who constructed the premises. The defendant alleged that RAS made changes to the property that were not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. The defendant sought indemnity from RAS and Sierra View.

Result

The parties settled. Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $19,499, which included $8,000 for damages and $11,499 for plaintiff's attorney fees. Defendant also agreed to cure the property.

Other Information

Filing Date: June 27, 2007


#92894

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390