Nesmuth
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,191
- Reaction score
- 1
Court Sides with Hospital in Dispute Over Provision of Interpreter for Deaf Patient
A hospital's failure to provide an interpreter for a deaf man
being treated for a stroke did not rise to the level of
"deliberate indifference" that would violate the federal
Rehabilitation Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ruled June 15, affirming a grant of summary judgment below
(Saltzman v. Board of Commissioners, 11th Cir., No. 06-12734,
unpublished 6/15/07).
Plaintiff Andrew Saltzman, a deaf man who communicates with his
wife and family using American Sign Language, was taken to
Northwest Medical Center Inc. after suffering what later was
diagnosed as a stroke. After he was stabilized, he was transferred
to North Broward Medical Center for therapy and rehabilitation.
At Northwest, his daughter provided a staff member with a business
card with an interpreter's name and phone number. She requested an
interpreter for him each day during his three-day stay. His wife
had made the same request of the ambulance staff that responded to
her TYY machine call to 911, seeking to have an interpreter
waiting for them at the hospital. Nonetheless, no interpreter was
provided, although hospital staff did use a hospital information
sheet to contact one of two organizations on the list that provide
sign language interpreting services. Staff never succeeded in
coordinating an interpreter's visit with one by Saltzman's
physician, however.
With no interpreter, hospital staff communicated with the
Saltzmans through their daughter, when she was available, and by
"using fingerspelling, writing, and hand signals, [to convey] that
Mr. Saltzman had suffered a stroke, but that he was going to be
'okay,' " the court said. However, the Saltzmans were "unable to
comprehend fully the meaning of the written term 'stroke,' " and
claimed damages under the Rehabilitation Act and for intentional
infliction of emotional distress based on "the isolation and fear
Mr. Saltzman experienced due to the claimed ineffectiveness of
their attempts to communicate." Allegations of violation of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and of Florida
statutory law were dismissed at trial.
A hospital's failure to provide an interpreter for a deaf man
being treated for a stroke did not rise to the level of
"deliberate indifference" that would violate the federal
Rehabilitation Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ruled June 15, affirming a grant of summary judgment below
(Saltzman v. Board of Commissioners, 11th Cir., No. 06-12734,
unpublished 6/15/07).
Plaintiff Andrew Saltzman, a deaf man who communicates with his
wife and family using American Sign Language, was taken to
Northwest Medical Center Inc. after suffering what later was
diagnosed as a stroke. After he was stabilized, he was transferred
to North Broward Medical Center for therapy and rehabilitation.
At Northwest, his daughter provided a staff member with a business
card with an interpreter's name and phone number. She requested an
interpreter for him each day during his three-day stay. His wife
had made the same request of the ambulance staff that responded to
her TYY machine call to 911, seeking to have an interpreter
waiting for them at the hospital. Nonetheless, no interpreter was
provided, although hospital staff did use a hospital information
sheet to contact one of two organizations on the list that provide
sign language interpreting services. Staff never succeeded in
coordinating an interpreter's visit with one by Saltzman's
physician, however.
With no interpreter, hospital staff communicated with the
Saltzmans through their daughter, when she was available, and by
"using fingerspelling, writing, and hand signals, [to convey] that
Mr. Saltzman had suffered a stroke, but that he was going to be
'okay,' " the court said. However, the Saltzmans were "unable to
comprehend fully the meaning of the written term 'stroke,' " and
claimed damages under the Rehabilitation Act and for intentional
infliction of emotional distress based on "the isolation and fear
Mr. Saltzman experienced due to the claimed ineffectiveness of
their attempts to communicate." Allegations of violation of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and of Florida
statutory law were dismissed at trial.