Deaf Visor Card Project

Designed and created by Deaf Advocate, Diane Edge, of Waldorf, Maryland - the Deaf Visor Card began production with 500 cards being printed and released for use within the Southern Maryland tri county area.

This simple card- stays inside the vehicle's visor, unless needed. Should the driver be pulled over by a law enforcement officer or others, then the card is handed to them to inform the hearing persons that the driver is deaf. The card has tips for safe interaction for both parties and also legal information pertaining to the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Also included is a place where contacting a Qualified Interpreter can be used in the event that communication between parties becomes difficult.

The Deaf Visor Card Project has now been printed and distributed by WYND Communications on the West Coast, Maryland Sheriff's Association, and the Washington Area Volkswagen Dealers.

For more information you can contact VW by visiting them at vw-dcmetro.com

To obtain a card from any Maryland Sheriff's Office
- stop by any local County Sheriff's Office/Baltimore City or call the MSA (voice)
at 410-269-4238

(Deaf Related) Americans With Disabilities Act: Wins, Settlements and Compliance

DEAF ADVOCACY
BREAKING DOWN THE BARRIERS OF DISCRIMINATION
By Diane Edge

Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Deaf-Blind have the right to request from any health care professional, including hospitals, nursing homes, private practice physicians, etc. any auxiliary aids that will allow them access, and to fully participate in any service or program that is being offered to the general public at no cost to themselves or through their insurance company. This civil right is found in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title III - Public Accommodations.# 42 U.S.C-1210. The first on the list of Auxiliary aids is: Qualified Interpreters. The ADA definition of a Qualified Interpreter is: An interpreter who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary.

The Americans with Disabilities Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. Public accommodations include any professional office of a health care provider, regardless of the size of the office or number of employees. 28 C.F.R. 36.104. Title II of the ADA places the same prohibition on any state or local government health care provider. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 also prohibits discrimination and covers health care providers who receive Medicare or Med-Cal payments. Health care providers are required to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication with their deaf patients or deaf family members, at no cost to the deaf individual. Complied from the United States Department of Justice Americans With Disabilities Act home page, these wins and settlements clearly demonstrate that deaf individuals have a civil right to obtain effective and reasonable access to all goods and services and to request appropriate auxiliary aids whenever necessary.

Enforcing the ADA: Advocacy breaks down the barriers to discrimination

The ADA requires that people with disabilities have equal access to health care provided by both the public and private sectors and that the care be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate. The Department has acted forcefully to ensure compliance by 9-1-1 systems, dentists, doctors, hospitals, and State long-term care programs. These reports are available through the he World Wide Web. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm
To obtain general information about the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call - TTY:
1 - 800 - 514 -0383 For voice calls, dial 1- 800 - 514 -0301.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a comprehensive civil rights law for people with disabilities. The Department of Justice enforces the ADA's requirements in three areas --
Title I: Employment practices by units of State and local government
Title II: Programs, services, and activities of State and local government
Title III: Public accommodations and commercial facilities
I. Enforcement :Through lawsuits and both formal and informal settlement agreements, the Department has achieved greater access for individuals with disabilities in hundreds of cases. Under general rules governing lawsuits brought by the Federal Government, the Department of Justice may not file a lawsuit unless it has first unsuccessfully attempted to settle the dispute through negotiations.

A. Litigation
The Department may file lawsuits in Federal court to enforce the ADA and may obtain court orders including compensatory damages and back pay to remedy discrimination. Under title III the Department may also obtain civil penalties of up to 55,000 for the first violation and 110,000 for any subsequent violation.

** In Washington, D.C., an individual who is deaf complained that an eye care service provider failed to provide an interpreter for a consultation even after he waited for three hours. The facility confirmed that it had an existing policy of providing interpreter services, but that the policy had not been followed. The facility instituted new procedures to ensure proper implementation of the policy and refunded the cost of the appointment.

** A deaf individual complained that a Maryland doctor refused to pay for a qualified sign language interpreter for the complainant's office visits. The doctor agreed to pay the outstanding bill for interpreter services. The doctor agreed to change the office policy and establish a protocol for addressing the needs of people with disabilities. Specifically, a list of qualified sign language interpreters will be maintained by the office staff, potential patients who are deaf will be notified that qualified sign language interpreters will be provided free-of-charge for office visits, if requested in advance, and a sign stating this policy will be displayed in the office. The doctor agreed to have the staff educated regarding the ADA. The doctor also agreed to write an article for publication in a newsletter addressing the obligations of doctors under the ADA. Finally, the doctor agreed to arrange for an advocate of the ADA to speak at a gathering of physicians.

** A Maryland doctor who had refused to pay for a qualified sign language interpreter for a patient's office visit agreed to institute a policy for hiring interpreters and notifying deaf patients that sign language interpretation will be provided on request at no cost to deaf patients. The doctor also agreed to train office staff about effective communication with patients with hearing impairments and to pay the complainant

** A Maryland hospital center agreed to pay a total of ,000 in damages to an individual who, because of her service animal, was mistakenly prevented from accompanying her son into the hospital for an MRI procedure and to another individual who was barred by hospital policy from having her service animal present in her inpatient room. The hospital agreed to modify its absolute ban on service animals in inpatient rooms.

** A deaf person complained that a Maryland hospital did not provide an appropriate sign language interpreter for the complainant's visit. The hospital had hired an interpreter who was not qualified to interpret in American Sign Language. The hospital management acknowledged that they were unaware that more than one type of sign language existed and agreed to become better informed about how to communicate effectively with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The management agreed to review its policies regarding effective communication for people with hearing disabilities and make changes where appropriate, including allowing interpreters to be present during various medical procedures.

** A Maryland doctor agreed to provide a sign language interpreter for a patient and her husband, both of whom are deaf, during office visits.

** In Virginia, a person who is deaf complained that a doctor did not provide interpreter services upon request. In mediation, the doctor agreed to provide such services.

** Virginia Department of Health -- The Department reached an agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health resolving a complaint alleging that emergency medical technician training provided by Virginia was not accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The department of health agreed to provide sign language interpreters in training programs that require interaction with program moderators. It will provide written transcripts in training programs that only require the trainee to view a video. The department of health will publicize the availability of interpreters and transcripts and will provide them free of charge to people with hearing impairments.

** In Pennsylvania, a person who is deaf complained that two doctors refused to pay for the services of qualified sign language interpreters for office visits. The doctors agreed to comply with the ADA s requirements for effective communication. They will develop a pre visit questionnaire for use by all patients who are deaf or hard of hearing. One of the questions on the form will be whether the patient believes a qualified sign language interpreter is necessary for effective communication during the office visit. The doctors also agreed to develop an exit form for patients to evaluate the effectiveness of the communication during the office visit. The doctors agreed to instruct the appropriate staff members on the use of these forms and to attend training to increase sensitivity toward people who are deaf or hard of hearing and to convey this information to staff members. The doctors also apologized for any lack of effective communication.

** Allentown, Pennsylvania -- The Department entered into a settlement agreement with St. Luke's Hospital and Health Network resolving a complaint alleging discrimination against a patient and her husband, both of whom are deaf and use American Sign Language as their primary means of communication. The patient was brought to St. Luke's Hospital Emergency Department and was eventually diagnosed with meningitis. The complainant charged that there was a lack of effective communication during her emergency room visit and that her requests for an interpreter were never granted. The agreement requires St. Luke's to provide effective communication between patients, companions, family members, and hospital staff, and to perform initial evaluations as well as ongoing assessments to determine when qualified interpreters or other auxiliary aids will be necessary. St. Luke's also agreed to provide TTY's and closed captioning for televisions on a 24-hour a day basis. Because St. Luke's is located in a rural area, it may elect to become a part of a pilot study that employs the use of video interpreting services in order to satisfy the agreement's requirement that necessary interpreters be provided within one hour. St. Luke's also agreed to pay to the complainant.

** The Mount Airy Campus of the Franciscan Hospital agreed to take major steps to improve the accessibility of its services to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. The agreement resolves a complaint alleging the hospital failed to provide a sign language interpreter where necessary for effective communication. The hospital agreed to amend its guidelines to require its ambulance service to notify the hospital when emergency patients need an interpreter; train new and current emergency room personnel to ensure interpreters are provided where necessary for effective communication; and maintain a log in the six months following the agreement identifying whether sign language interpreters were offered and provided to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.

** An Ohio health care provider agreed to provide effective communication by adopting a policy of providing qualified sign language interpreters, posting signs, and educating its staff about its ADA responsibilities.

** Dr. Delmar Gheen, Canton, Ohio - To resolve a complaint filed with the Department by a deaf patient, an Ohio pediatrician agreed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including qualified sign language interpreters, when necessary to ensure effective communication. The doctor also agreed to pay the complainant $1,500.

** New York Federal Court Allows Interpreter Damages Suit to Proceed -- In Constance v. State University of New York Health Science Center, the Department filed an amicus brief in support of a hospital emergency room trauma patient and her husband, both of whom are deaf, who claim that the New York Health Science Center violated the ADA by failing to provide them the services of a sign language interpreter despite repeated requests. The brief argued that both the patient and her husband have standing to bring this lawsuit and that if they prove the facts in the complaint they should be entitled to damages. Because the defendants challenged the constitutionality of title II, the Department also intervened to defend its constitutionality. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York rejected the State's constitutional challenge and found that the plaintiffs had alleged enough evidence of "deliberate indifference" to plaintiffs ADA rights to allow a suit for damages to proceed. The court also gave the plaintiffs the opportunity to establish their standing to bring this case by allowing them to amend their complaint to allege that they are likely to be subjected to discrimination again by the same hospital

** A person who is deaf complained that a New York doctor refused to provide the services of a qualified sign language interpreter for an office visit. The doctor agreed to develop a policy for providing effective communication and to provide the services of a qualified sign language interpreter for the next office visit.


** A Tennessee hospital agreed to provide interpreters for future seminars it sponsors whether they are held at the hospital or at other locations, including hotels.

** Advocate Ravenswood Hospital Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois -- The Department signed an agreement with Advocate Ravenswood Hospital Medical Center resolving a complaint that the hospital did not provide a deaf patient with a sign language interpreter or TTY's during her stay at the hospital. The hospital agreed to establish a comprehensive program to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to patients, their families, and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing and annual training to hospital personnel and affiliated physicians. The hospital will also contribute 15,000 to a disability advocacy group in the name of the now deceased complainant.

** The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois obtained informal settlements in the following cases -- Two hospitals agreed to adopt a policy for providing sign language interpreters to ensure effective communication in the delivery of services.

** In Kentucky, a person who is deaf complained that a medical center failed to provide interpreter services when requested in advance. The medical center agreed to provide interpreter services in the future.

** A deaf individual complained that a Minnesota doctor's office failed to provide interpreter services for an appointment. The doctor agreed to provide interpreters when necessary and added telephone numbers of interpreters to the office telephone roster. The doctor also disciplined the employee who refused to provide the interpreter and apologized to the complainant.

** The Department reached an agreement with the Davis Hospital and Medical Center in Layton, Utah resolving a complaint that the hospital failed to provide a sign language interpreter to two deaf individuals, a patient and his wife. It was alleged that because of the lack of an interpreter the couple received inadequate information about the patient's cancer care and treatment options. Because of this failure, the couple did not know how to administer the medications properly at home and complications developed, requiring the patient to return to the hospital. The lack of effective communication also meant that the patient did not know of the terminal nature of his condition and that he was denied the opportunity to talk to family members and friends before he died. In addition to paying ,000 in damages to the patient's wife, the hospital agreed to establish a comprehensive program to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to patients, their families, and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing and annual training to hospital personnel and affiliated physicians.

** Two Texas physicians developed written policies stating that they will provide sign language interpreters free of charge when necessary to ensure effective communication.

** An individual who is deaf complained that an Iowa dental office failed to provide a sign language interpreter for a scheduled appointment as requested. The dentist agreed to hire an interpreter for the complainant's future office visits and to train staff on disability and sensitivity issues. The dentist also wrote a letter of apology to the complainant and refunded her , the cost of the office visit.

** Walker v. Washington (7th Circuit) -- title II suit challenging - surcharge for providing an auxiliary aid.

** Jury Requires Obstetrical Practice to Pay ,000 in Interpreter Case - A jury of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in U.S. vs. York Women's' Care Associates awarded ,000 in damages to a deaf individual who was denied a sign language interpreter for medical consultations involving his wife's high-risk pregnancy. Because of the lack of an interpreter, the couple, both of who are deaf, was unable during office visits to fully communicate with the medical practice about dietary concerns and other complications caused by the wife's gestational diabetes. The patient herself did not receive a damages award because the jury found that she had waived her request for an interpreter. The U.S. Attorney will ask the court to require the practice to pay civil penalties and to enter an order preventing future violations.

** West Michigan E.N.T. and Hearing Center, Muskegon, Michigan - The Department reached an agreement with the West Michigan E.N.T. and Hearing Center resolving a complaint that the Center failed to provide effective communication for a patient who is deaf. The Center agreed to comply with the auxiliary aids requirements of the ADA including the provision of qualified sign language interpreters when necessary to ensure effective communication. The Center will also train its employees on ADA requirements and post a notice to patients notifying them of the Center's commitment to meeting its ADA obligations.

** American Red Cross, San Francisco, California -- The Department settled a complaint against the San Francisco Bay Area Red Cross by a deaf individual who was unable to take a first aid and CPR course, because the Red Cross denied her request for a sign language interpreter. Under the settlement, the Red Cross agreed to provide auxiliary aids and services, such as sign language interpreters, when necessary for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing; consult promptly with individuals with disabilities regarding their requests and needs; offer the complainant a free course with an interpreter present; and, distribute pamphlets, posters and other information to the public concerning the new policy.

** A physician in Rockford, Illinois, adopted a written policy for providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including sign language interpreters, at no expense to the patient.

** In Florida, a woman who is deaf complained that a dentist refused to provide an interpreter so that she could communicate with the dentist about her daughter s diagnosis and treatment. The dentist agreed to provide an interpreter.

** A southern State's rural health services organization adopted a policy to provide auxiliary aids and services when requested, including qualified sign language interpreters. The policy requests that the patient provide five days advance notice and guarantees that all interpreter costs will be paid by the organization.

** The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois obtained informal settlements in the following cases -- Two hospitals agreed to adopt a policy for providing sign language interpreters to ensure effective communication in the delivery of services.

** Maine Hospital Will Provide Auxiliary Aids for Deaf, Hard of Hearing -- The U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine, a private plaintiff, and the Maine Medical Center entered into a consent decree requiring the medical center to provide qualified sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices and TTY's, captioned televisions, and other similar aids and services to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Maine Medical Center, which is Maine's largest hospital, also agreed to publish and distribute a new written hospital policy directing its employees to offer an interpreter whenever staff has any reason to believe a patient is deaf or hard of hearing. The interpreter is to be made available by the medical center as soon as possible and no later than one hour after the receipt of a request for an interpreter. The hospital also agreed to provide the same services including interpreters to deaf family members, relatives, companions, and friends who visit or accompany a patient. The hospital will require all of its clinical directors and department heads, as well as its supervisors, nurses, and other patient-contact personnel, to participate in mandatory and comprehensive in-service training regarding the proper use and role of interpreters and other communication needs of persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Maine Medical Center also agreed to produce an educational video and distribute materials to all physicians with hospital privileges regarding the ADA rights of persons who are deaf and hard of hearing and to pay a civil penalty of ,000 and ,000 in damages to the plaintiff.

** Oregon Obstetrician Pays Damages in Interpreter Suit -- The Disability Rights Section and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon intervened in and, at the same time, settled a lawsuit, Drew v. Merrill, challenging a Portland obstetrician's refusal to provide a sign language interpreter for medical consultations with a non disabled, expectant mother and a deaf father. The suit was resolved through a consent decree reached through formal mediation under which Perinatal Associates agreed to institute a policy of providing sign language interpreters for deaf patients or their partners who are deaf to ensure effective communication; provide training for doctors and staff on the requirements of the ADA; and pay ,000 in damages to the plaintiffs.

** A person who is deaf complained that a Nebraska dentist's office refused to provide effective communication during an office visit. The dentist agreed to institute a policy ensuring compliance with the ADA and to attend training on both the requirements of the ADA and disability awareness. She agreed to join with a disability rights lawyer in conducting four presentations for professional organizations on the ADA and dentists, wrote a letter of apology to the complainant, and agreed to pay the complainant .00

** U.S. v. York Obstetrics and Gynecology -- The U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine filed suit against York Obstetrics and Gynecology, a medical practice that allegedly rejected repeated requests to provide a sign language interpreter for office visits by an expectant deaf couple during the course of a high-risk pregnancy involving gestational diabetes. Because of the lack of an interpreter, the couple was unable to fully communicate with the practice about dietary concerns and other complications caused by the diabetes.

** In Utah, a person who is deaf complained that a doctor's office refused to provide an interpreter for effective communication during an office visit. The doctor acknowledged his responsibilities and agreed to comply with the effective communication requirements under the ADA. He also apologized for the manner in which his staff handled communications with the complainant.

** Central Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi -- The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi reached an agreement with Central Mississippi Medical Center resolving a complaint that the Center denied a request for an interpreter for a deaf individual to attend child birth classes. The Center will institute a policy to ensure that individuals will receive the auxiliary aids and services needed for effective communication, including sign language interpreters. For courses or seminars offered by the Center, no more than 48 hours prior notice will be required to receive an interpreter. The Center will also provide ADA training to its employees and pay $1,000 in damages to the complainant.

** A North Carolina Medical Center that failed to provide effective communication during an emergency room visit purchased two TTY's, entered into a contract with an interpreter service agency, obtained a list of freelance interpreters in the immediate area, and adopted a policy ensuring effective communication with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or who have speech impairments.

** An individual who is deaf complained that a South Dakota medical clinic refused to use a relay service to provide her with effective communication. The clinic adopted a policy on effective communication, including instructions on using the relay system, interpreter services, and written communications to ensure effective communication.

** A New Jersey medical center that had allegedly failed to provide a qualified sign language interpreter for a deaf individual seeking dietary and nutritional counseling agreed to train all managers on how to respond appropriately to future requests for interpreters, contact the State Hospital Association to collect instructional materials on accommodations for people with hearing impairments, reimburse the complainant for the fee paid for the initial counseling session, and provide the complainant a free individual counseling session.

** An individual who is severely hard of hearing complained that she was not allowed to bring her service animal with her into the offices of a Georgia eye doctor. The doctor agreed to place signs at the building entrance and at the front desk welcoming persons with service animals, to train his staff about service animals and how to ensure effective communication with patients who are deaf or hard of hearing, and to maintain a list of qualified sign language interpreters. The doctor also agreed to write an article for his professional organization's newsletter outlining the obligations of doctors under the ADA and to recommend that a disability advocate make a presentation on service animals at the organization's next meeting. Finally, the doctor agreed to make a donation to Dogs for the Deaf.

** A person who is deaf complained that a Mississippi hospital did not provide TTY access to public pay phones and that the hospital refused to provide a sign language interpreter when she was a patient. The hospital agreed to provide qualified interpreters for deaf persons and their immediate family members upon request, to periodically review policies and procedures to make sure that effective communication is provided, and to improve staff training on ADA requirements. The hospital also agreed to provide TTY access to public pay phones on the premises.



© 2002 All rights reserved.
Advocacy Support League P.O. Box 1734, White Plains, MD 20695 advocacy2002@yahoo.com

Add your link here