Nieves v. The Plaza Rehabilitation & Nursing Center

Background

Dwight Nieves, who is deaf, uses American Sign Language as his primary and preferred method of communication. He stayed at The Plaza Rehabilitation and Nursing Center from approximately December 26, 2018, through February 1, 2019, after heart surgery. Citadel Care Centers provided management and oversight to the Plaza.

Nieves alleged that the defendants discriminated against him by failing to provide American Sign Language interpretation during his stay. His claims arose under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York Public Health Law. He sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and other relief.

The Plaza had a contract for video remote interpreting services. Staff knew before Nieves arrived that he was deaf and would need sign-language interpretation. A video-interpreting device was provided and used during some interactions, and staff were trained to use it. The parties disputed how often it was used, whether Nieves requested it and was refused, whether he sometimes declined it, and whether he could communicate effectively through writing, gestures, lip reading, or limited speech. The parties also disputed what happened during the discharge meeting.

Summary-judgment rulings

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about facts that could affect the result. The court must not decide disputed facts or choose which witnesses to believe at that stage.

The court dismissed Nieves’s ADA claim. Nieves withdrew his request for injunctive relief, and the court explained that a private individual may obtain only injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA, not monetary damages. The opinion states that the ADA claim was dismissed but does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Rehabilitation Act claim

The court denied both parties’ motions as to liability under the Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act requires federally funded programs to provide disabled people meaningful access to their services. The court identified genuine factual disputes about whether video interpreting was available and used when needed, and whether Nieves could effectively communicate without it. Those disputes included the nature and complexity of the interactions, how long they lasted, and whether staff refused interpreting services when Nieves requested them.

The court also found factual disputes about whether the defendants acted with deliberate indifference, meaning that an official with authority to correct the problem knew of a strong likelihood of discrimination and deliberately failed to respond adequately. The court left that issue for the jury.

The defendants’ motion was granted as to compensatory damages based on emotional distress, expectation damages, and dignitary harm under the Rehabilitation Act. The court ruled that Nieves could pursue only nominal damages under that claim. Nominal damages are a small amount awarded when a legal violation is established but compensable actual damages are not available or proven.

Affordable Care Act claim

The court denied both parties’ motions as to the Affordable Care Act claim. The court explained that the statute and its regulations require covered entities to give primary consideration to a disabled person’s requested auxiliary aid, such as an interpreter, unless an equally effective alternative is available or the requested aid would create an undue burden or fundamentally change the service.

The court found factual disputes about whether the defendants honored Nieves’s request for video interpreting, whether they refused it or he declined it, and whether other communication methods were equally effective in the medical setting. The defendants admitted that providing American Sign Language interpretation would not impose an undue burden or fundamental alteration.

The defendants’ motion was granted as to compensatory damages under the Affordable Care Act. As with the Rehabilitation Act claim, the court ruled that Nieves could pursue only nominal damages.

New York State and City claims

The court declined to grant summary judgment on liability under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. It treated those claims as at least coextensive with the Rehabilitation Act claim, and it noted that the New York City law is interpreted more broadly.

The court also declined to preclude compensatory damages under those state and city claims. Unlike the Rehabilitation Act and Affordable Care Act claims, the court concluded that emotional-distress damages were not barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. The court also declined to preclude punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law because a jury could find conscious disregard of Nieves’s rights if it found that staff refused requested interpreting services.

New York Public Health Law claim

The court declined to grant summary judgment on Nieves’s claim under New York Public Health Law § 2801-d. That statute can provide a remedy when a residential health care facility deprives a patient of a right or benefit and the patient is injured as a result. The court held that this claim could proceed based on the rights potentially established by the Rehabilitation Act, Affordable Care Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. It also found that the defendants had not adequately addressed Nieves’s separate theories involving a residents’ rights notice and rights under another New York Public Health Law provision.

The court likewise declined to preclude punitive damages under the Public Health Law at this stage.

Disposition

The court denied Nieves’s motion for summary judgment. It denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The ADA claim was dismissed. The remaining claims were allowed to proceed toward a jury trial, but compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act and Affordable Care Act claims were barred; only nominal damages could be pursued under those two claims. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon directed the parties to propose trial dates and submit pretrial materials.