Fantasia v. Montefiore New Rochelle

Background

Irma Fantasia sued Montefiore New Rochelle under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Fantasia is deaf, and American Sign Language is her primary language. Montefiore is a hospital that receives federal financial assistance.

Fantasia went to Montefiore’s emergency department on April 12, 2017, and was then admitted to the telemetry unit. Her daughter, Michele Bianchi, accompanied her and interpreted for her during interactions with medical providers. Bianchi is a professional American Sign Language interpreter, but the parties disputed whether she had professional medical-interpreting experience.

Fantasia and Bianchi testified that they repeatedly requested a professional interpreter and that hospital employees ignored, deferred, or denied those requests. Montefiore presented evidence that Bianchi volunteered to interpret, that Fantasia preferred Bianchi’s interpretation, and that neither of them requested another interpreter. The medical records did not state that interpreting services were requested or offered.

The parties also disputed whether Fantasia could effectively communicate with hospital staff through Bianchi. Fantasia provided evidence that she had difficulty understanding her care, did not feel comfortable asking questions, and would have participated more fully with a professional interpreter. Montefiore presented evidence that Fantasia understood the communications, that Bianchi interpreted effectively, and that hospital staff had no difficulty communicating with Fantasia.

Motions and legal standards

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court may not decide witness credibility at this stage.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Montefiore argued that Fantasia’s ADA claim was moot because she no longer sought injunctive relief. The court agreed. Under Title III of the ADA, an individual may obtain injunctive relief but not damages. Fantasia withdrew her request for injunctive and declaratory relief, so the court dismissed her ADA claim.

Rehabilitation Act claim

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability discrimination by a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The applicable regulations require covered entities to provide appropriate auxiliary aids, such as interpreters, when necessary to give people with impaired hearing an equal opportunity to receive services.

The court found genuine disputes about whether an interpreter or another auxiliary aid was necessary and whether the aid provided was appropriate. The parties presented conflicting evidence about whether Fantasia could effectively communicate with hospital staff and whether she requested an interpreter. The court rejected Montefiore’s argument that Fantasia’s evidence should be disregarded, explaining that questions about the witnesses’ credibility must be decided by a fact finder.

The court also found factual disputes about whether Montefiore acted with deliberate indifference, which is required for compensatory damages under Section 504. That question depended in part on whether an official or policymaker had actual knowledge of discrimination, authority to correct it, and failed to respond adequately. Because the evidence conflicted about whether hospital staff knew Fantasia needed an interpreter, the court denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions on this claim.

Affordable Care Act claim

The court explained that ACA Section 1557 claims are generally analyzed like Rehabilitation Act claims, although the applicable regulations also require covered health programs to ensure that communications with people with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.

Those regulations generally prohibit health-care providers from relying on an accompanying adult to interpret, subject to limited exceptions. One exception applies to an emergency involving an imminent threat when no interpreter is available. Another applies when the person with a disability specifically requests that the accompanying adult interpret, the adult agrees, and reliance on that adult is appropriate.

The court found genuine factual disputes about whether Montefiore gave primary consideration to Fantasia’s requested choice of aid, whether Fantasia and Bianchi freely and voluntarily consented to Bianchi’s role, and whether relying on Bianchi was appropriate under the circumstances. The court therefore denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions on the ACA claim.

New York State Human Rights Law claim

The NYSHRL prohibits disability discrimination in places of public accommodation. The court stated that NYSHRL claims are generally coextensive with Rehabilitation Act claims, except that a plaintiff need not prove deliberate indifference to recover damages under the NYSHRL. For the same reasons that summary judgment was inappropriate on the Rehabilitation Act claim, the court denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions on the NYSHRL claim.

Disposition

The court granted Montefiore’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It denied Fantasia’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Fantasia’s ADA claim. Her Rehabilitation Act, ACA, and NYSHRL claims could proceed, and the court scheduled a case-management conference to discuss trial scheduling, pretrial submissions, and settlement efforts.