Deaf unprofessional interpreter

rockdrummer said:
The point would be to ensure services are available for those that need them. IMHO the law should be changed.
Click to expand...
Which law would you want to change? The ADA?

If hearing organizations can start charging deaf consumers for interpreting fees, then you open up a whole new can of worms. I don't think it would ensure services for those who need them. I think it would cause deaf clients to forgo requesting terp services.
 
Reba said:
Which law would you want to change? The ADA?

If hearing organizations can start charging deaf consumers for interpreting fees, then you open up a whole new can of worms. I don't think it would ensure services for those who need them. I think it would cause deaf clients to forgo requesting terp services.
Click to expand...
You are the one that said it's against the law so whatever law you are talking about is the one I would change.

Reba said:
It might be "fair" but it's not legal--that's the rub. ..........
Click to expand...

Also I am not suggesting to charge deaf consumers for interpreting services. Only charge the ones that don't show up for their appointments and cause the company to have to pay for nothing. It is not right for a company to hire an interpreter for a deaf client that blows off the appointment for no legitimate reason or that doesn't provide adequate notice. There are many contracts that are like that. You have the right to cancel without penalty if you provide adequate notice. If you cancel and don't provide adequate notice then you are chagred. If you show up for your appointment then there is no charge.
 
rockdrummer said:
You are the one that said it's against the law so whatever law you are talking about is the one I would change.



Also I am not suggesting to charge deaf consumers for interpreting services. Only charge the ones that don't show up for their appointments and cause the company to have to pay for nothing. It is not right for a company to hire an interpreter for a deaf client that blows off the appointment for no legitimate reason or that doesn't provide adequate notice. There are many contracts that are like that. You have the right to cancel without penalty if you provide adequate notice. If you cancel and don't provide adequate notice then you are chagred. If you show up for your appointment then there is no charge.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, but what would constitute a legitimate reason? A couple years ago I missed a doctor's appointment because I got caught in a traffic accident, but the doctor charged me $75 anyway. Imagine my chagrin if the interpreter also charged me.
(PS, I got the doctor to remove the $75 fee.)
 
Beowulf said:
Interesting idea, but what would constitute a legitimate reason? A couple years ago I missed a doctor's appointment because I got caught in a traffic accident, but the doctor charged me $75 anyway. Imagine my chagrin if the interpreter also charged me.
(PS, I got the doctor to remove the $75 fee.)
Click to expand...
I would consider getting involved in a car accident a legitimate reason. My suggestion is to give adequate notice (IE. 24 hours) or have a bonafied emergency such as a car accident or family emergency or health issue. The problem is that if too many deaf people blow off appointments and the provider ends up paying for the terp, most likley the provider will stop trying to accomidate and I can't say I would blame them. And when I say blow off the appointment that means just not show up without notice or a bonafied emergency.
 
rockdrummer said:
You are the one that said it's against the law so whatever law you are talking about is the one I would change.
Click to expand...
That would mean revamping the ADA. I don't think that's going to happen.


Also I am not suggesting to charge deaf consumers for interpreting services. Only charge the ones that don't show up for their appointments and cause the company to have to pay for nothing.
Click to expand...
I realize that you aren't suggesting to charge deaf consumers for interpreting services. However, if you start charging them for the services of missed appointments, then you open up the possibility of charging them for all services. That's a risky move.

It is not right for a company to hire an interpreter for a deaf client that blows off the appointment for no legitimate reason or that doesn't provide adequate notice. There are many contracts that are like that. You have the right to cancel without penalty if you provide adequate notice. If you cancel and don't provide adequate notice then you are chagred. If you show up for your appointment then there is no charge.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem. The contract is between the hearing client and the interpreter. If the hearing client, say the Social Security Office or the hospital, cancels an appointment with at least 24 hours notice, then they aren't charged. If the the SS office or hospital don't cancel in advance, the terp shows up, and then is informed the appointment is canceled because the deaf consumer/patient didn't show up, then the hearing client owes the terp for that time. The appointment for the terp is made by the SS office or hospital. The deaf consumer is not involved in the transaction.

What you are suggesting is a contractual agreement between the deaf consumer and the hearing client for reimbursement of terp fees, in the event of a cancellation by the deaf person. It sounds fair in theory but it's not allowed because it could intimidate the deaf consumers into not requesting terps out of fear of having to pay the cost. Also, do you really expect a deaf consumer who is making an appointment for SSI benefits or Medicaid services to be able to afford terp fees? How will the hearing client collect the fee?

One more factor. If the deaf consumer did have to "pay up," who do you think would get the blame and ill will? The interpreter. The deaf consumer will say, "All those interpreters are greedy and only want money from poor deaf people."

Am I wrong?
 
rockdrummer said:
I would consider getting involved in a car accident a legitimate reason. My suggestion is to give adequate notice (IE. 24 hours) or have a bonafied emergency such as a car accident or family emergency or health issue. The problem is that if too many deaf people blow off appointments and the provider ends up paying for the terp, most likley the provider will stop trying to accomidate and I can't say I would blame them. And when I say blow off the appointment that means just not show up without notice or a bonafied emergency.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem--who defines "legitimate emergency?" How does one prove a legitimate emergency? Supply a police report or doctor's note? Suppose the deaf consumer's ride didn't show up--is that legitimate? Is it provable?

Lots of complications involved.
 
Right so make it simple. The same advanced notice that is required to cancell the terp should be extended to the deaf client. If they give adequate advanced notice, no harm no foul. If they don't they they MAY be liable to pay for the services depending on the circumstances. That is all I am saying. And regardless of how some deaf people may percieve this, fair is fair and it should apply to hearing and deaf alike. It is not really that difficult or complicated. We see these types of cancellation policies all over the place. It's nothing new.
 
rockdrummer said:
Right so make it simple. The same advanced notice that is required to cancell the terp should be extended to the deaf client. If they give adequate advanced notice, no harm no foul. If they don't they they MAY be liable to pay for the services depending on the circumstances. That is all I am saying. And regardless of how some deaf people may percieve this, fair is fair and it should apply to hearing and deaf alike. It is not really that difficult or complicated. We see these types of cancellation policies all over the place. It's nothing new.
Click to expand...
If you believe that it's an easy solution, then why do you think organizations don't do that? :hmm:
 
I know that ADA requires interpreters, but if a client skips out with an invalid excuse... can the client be billed for the interpreter request?
 
Right so make it simple. The same advanced notice that is required to cancell the terp should be extended to the deaf client. If they give adequate advanced notice, no harm no foul. If they don't they they MAY be liable to pay for the services depending on the circumstances. That is all I am saying. And regardless of how some deaf people may percieve this, fair is fair and it should apply to hearing and deaf alike. It is not really that difficult or complicated. We see these types of cancellation policies all over the place. It's nothing new.
Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable. Apply the same 24-hour-notice policy to terps as is applied to most appointments.

If a Deaf person has an emergency and misses their appointment, it's no different from if a hearing person has an emergency and misses their appointment. But if they plan not to go, then the only difference between Deaf and hearing is that the Deaf person has to notify to company to cancel the interpreter too.
 
VamPyroX said:
I know that ADA requires interpreters, but if a client skips out with an invalid excuse... can the client be billed for the interpreter request?
Click to expand...
Not usually. The only situation I can think of where that might happen is if the deaf consumer made a private contract with someone for interpreting services. If the terp was scheduled by a doctor, hospital, social service or government agency, then the deaf consumer cannot be charged.
 
CJB said:
This sounds reasonable. Apply the same 24-hour-notice policy to terps as is applied to most appointments.

If a Deaf person has an emergency and misses their appointment, it's no different from if a hearing person has an emergency and misses their appointment. But if they plan not to go, then the only difference between Deaf and hearing is that the Deaf person has to notify to company to cancel the interpreter too.
Click to expand...
The problem is, what sounds reasonable and what is legal are not always the same thing.
 
Reba said:
The problem is, what sounds reasonable and what is legal are not always the same thing.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm saying I would support someone who was trying to change the law to meet that standard.
 
CJB said:
I know. I'm saying I would support someone who was trying to change the law to meet that standard.
Click to expand...
I'm curious how many deaf consumers would join you in that stand. :hmm:

Maybe you could make a new thread with a poll to find out how many deaf people would be willing to change the "no-show" policy, so that they would have to pay for canceled appointments.
 
Driving Miss Daisy said:
Sorry for the frustration :( It won't be no more one sentence here.

Here is a story. The agency did not want to hire ASL interpreters because of this deaf client tends not to show up. They cancelled her appointments 4 times. However, one day this deaf client did confirm the appointment date. They were uncomfortable hiring an interpreter, because they would be throwing money away if there is no interpreter needed. So they decided to get a hard of hearing counselor from their worksite, interpreting for this client and her case worker to discuss her immigration case. It is a heavy and legal stuff, how do you feel if it was you and your case. Mind you, this hard of hearing counselor does not know much about the immigration stuff. Yet, she speaks well and signs well.
Click to expand...

if it were my case I'd show up and not be in that position inb the 1st place
 
Reba said:
I'm curious how many deaf consumers would join you in that stand. :hmm:

Maybe you could make a new thread with a poll to find out how many deaf people would be willing to change the "no-show" policy, so that they would have to pay for canceled appointments.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have to pay if they gave a fair 24-hour notice, just as everyone is expected to do with every appointment, hearing or Deaf.
 
Back
Top