In the Chicago Tribune (1/5) Triage blog, Judith Graham wrote that "a new law amending the" Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) "went into effect" last week, which may result in "more lawsuits alleging discrimination." In the past, the Supreme Court has placed several restrictions on the protections afforded by the ADA. In 1999, the court decided "that a person with a serious but well-controlled medical condition" would not be considered disabled. The court also ruled in a separate case "that a disability must be permanent or long-term to qualify for protection," noting that "impairment had to be severe enough to affect activities central to a person's life." But, the new regulation, "signed into law this fall, affirms a broader definition of disability." Now, people will be "deemed disabled on the basis of their underlying medical condition," rather than "the therapy they've pursued." And, although people will still be required to establish that their "mental or physical impairment...substantially affects a major life activity," the number of qualifying activities has increased significantly.
Court holds physician liable for refusing to provide patient with interpreter. AMNews (1/5, Sorrel) reports that in October 2008, "a Hudson County jury...unanimously handed down a $400,000 award against" a New Jersey rheumatologist "for allegedly refusing to pay for a sign language interpreter for a patient who is deaf." According to the patient, she "repeatedly asked" the physician "to provide a sign language interpreter," but he "argued that, as a solo physician, he could not afford the cost." Instead, the two communicated through "written notes...with the help of family members." Although the patient "made no allegations of medical negligence," she argued that "she never had 'any real understanding' of her diagnosis, treatment or prognosis, and was deprived of an equal opportunity to fully participate in her medical care." The jury ruled that the physician "violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as New Jersey's anti-discrimination law." Meanwhile, the Medical Society of New Jersey contends that such "accommodations include a range of so-called auxiliary aids that doctors can use...which can be less expensive than an interpreter service."
Copyright © 2008 by Custom Briefings | 11190 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 130 | Reston, VA 20191