NAD files complaint against hosptial

jillio

jillio

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
60,232
Reaction score
22
NAD Files Complaints Against Palmetto General Hospital and the City of Hialeah, Florida
NAD Files Complaints Against Palmetto General Hospital and the City of Hialeah, Florida - National Association of the Deaf

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and the Law Offices of Matthew W. Dietz, P.L., filed two complaints in the United States District Court in Miami, Florida, against the City of Hialeah, Florida, and Palmetto General Hospital alleging their failure to provide qualified sign language interpreter services to ensure effective communication with Cynthia Cuevas and Erik Phillips, a deaf couple.
 
There should be more of this sort of thing to send a clear message that deaf/hoh people should not be denied services they are entitled to. I'm glad that someone has the courage to step up and file a complaint.
 
rockdrummer said:
There should be more of this sort of thing to send a clear message that deaf/hoh people should not be denied services they are entitled to. I'm glad that someone has the courage to step up and file a complaint.
Click to expand...

It goes on far too often, and people need to be aware that it is continuing to happen, despite legislation that is intended to protect.

I have also included a thread in the Deaf Ed forum regarding complaint filed on behalf of a student, and a thread regarding the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights.
 
jillio said:
It goes on far too often, and people need to be aware that it is continuing to happen, despite legislation that is intended to protect.

I have also included a thread in the Deaf Ed forum regarding complaint filed on behalf of a student, and a thread regarding the Deaf Child's Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
I think part of the problem is ignorance and/or not having the fortitude to stand up for your rights. I have seen many posts in this forum where people are being denied services (or service dogs not allowed) and they are asking for advise. Step up and file a complaint if you are being denied any of your rights. The laws are there. People need to be aware of them and ensure they are upheld even if that means filing a complaint.
 
rockdrummer said:
I think part of the problem is ignorance and/or not having the fortitude to stand up for your rights. I have seen many posts in this forum where people are being denied services (or service dogs not allowed) and they are asking for advise. Step up and file a complaint if you are being denied any of your rights. The laws are there. People need to be aware of them and ensure they are upheld even if that means filing a complaint.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. That is why the forum should be containing articles and reports that assist the deaf in understanding what their rights under the ADA are, and that there are places to seek assistance and ways to address the violations. The ADA and its requirements are Federally mandated. People should not have to demand and litigate to insure that the requirements for complaince are enforced. But apparently, there are still those out there who refuse to comply. They need swift action taken against them for their violations.
 
Hmm... I wonder if this is really the issue or just a matter of impatience?
 
I read this article as a breakdown in communication by the local police department first, why on earth would they just haul someone off to the hospital instead of trying to get an interpreter to the residence to figure out what the family dynamics were to begin with?
As an officer, I would not just load someone up because someone else claimed something - but then again - I sign - and would have asked "what is going on here?"

Why haven't they filed an unlawful restraint complaint against the PD? or did they?
 
jillio said:
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Could you clarify for me?
Click to expand...
There are often complaints by deaf people about ADA when the issue really is that the deaf people didn't do their part.

It is not a one-way street when it comes to ADA, it's a two-way street.

You can't just show up and assume that they will have an interpreter ready for you. They can't afford to have an interpreter on staff 24/7 when they only have a need for interpreters for 30 minutes once every month or something. You need to call in advance to make reservations.

The other issue is what type of communication is needed. What if the woman really had a mental problem and didn't need an interpreter? What if she couldn't speak English and needed a Spanish translator? What if she doesn't know sign language and needs the message typed or written? She needs to emphasize that she needs an ASL interpreter or whatever sign language interpreter she needed.

The article points out that in both situations, the mother-in-law started it. She's the one who should be sued.

If I called the police and told them that my roommate was running around the house with a gun, do you think the police will show up without their guns drawn to see if my story is true? What if my roommate has Down Syndrome and has a tendency of running around the house with a toy gun in his hand? The police don't know that. All they know is that there's a guy running around like a madman with a gun.

The mother-in-law called and said that she was mentally unfit. Well, when a deaf person can't communicate... the most common response anyone would get is a person who can't understand anything you're saying because they're not mentally capable of doing so. That's probably what happened with the hospital.

Also, hospitals can't remember every single person who comes in. They can't just learn of a problem with one person and be expected to remember it immediately when she visits next time. It could be a different doctor. It probably took time to access her records and they weren't fully aware of the fact while they were in a hurry to get her committed. It could be anything.

Another thing, the woman couldn't get her baby back from the mother-in-law because she was committed twice by the police. Well, the police don't keep record of the person's mental history... the hospital does. It is the hospital that keeps records saying that she's mentally fit. All the police can keep records of is the fact that they had to take her to the hospital twice.

Hospitals and the police can't stop and say, "Wait, I want to hear her side of the story." When someone is claimed to be at risk, then it's their job to resolve the issue as quick as possible. Blame the mother-in-law.
 
VamPyroX said:
There are often complaints by deaf people about ADA when the issue really is that the deaf people didn't do their part.

It is not a one-way street when it comes to ADA, it's a two-way street.

You can't just show up and assume that they will have an interpreter ready for you. They can't afford to have an interpreter on staff 24/7 when they only have a need for interpreters for 30 minutes once every month or something. You need to call in advance to make reservations.

The other issue is what type of communication is needed. What if the woman really had a mental problem and didn't need an interpreter? What if she couldn't speak English and needed a Spanish translator? What if she doesn't know sign language and needs the message typed or written? She needs to emphasize that she needs an ASL interpreter or whatever sign language interpreter she needed.

The article points out that in both situations, the mother-in-law started it. She's the one who should be sued.

If I called the police and told them that my roommate was running around the house with a gun, do you think the police will show up without their guns drawn to see if my story is true? What if my roommate has Down Syndrome and has a tendency of running around the house with a toy gun in his hand? The police don't know that. All they know is that there's a guy running around like a madman with a gun.

The mother-in-law called and said that she was mentally unfit. Well, when a deaf person can't communicate... the most common response anyone would get is a person who can't understand anything you're saying because they're not mentally capable of doing so. That's probably what happened with the hospital.

Also, hospitals can't remember every single person who comes in. They can't just learn of a problem with one person and be expected to remember it immediately when she visits next time. It could be a different doctor. It probably took time to access her records and they weren't fully aware of the fact while they were in a hurry to get her committed. It could be anything.

Another thing, the woman couldn't get her baby back from the mother-in-law because she was committed twice by the police. Well, the police don't keep record of the person's mental history... the hospital does. It is the hospital that keeps records saying that she's mentally fit. All the police can keep records of is the fact that they had to take her to the hospital twice.

Hospitals and the police can't stop and say, "Wait, I want to hear her side of the story." When someone is claimed to be at risk, then it's their job to resolve the issue as quick as possible. Blame the mother-in-law.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification!

I doubt seriously that the ADA would become involved if there wasn't sufficient evidence of a violation. If it is a matter of a deaf individual not following proper procedure, or not taking action to request services, they will inform the individual of what action they need to take to remedy the situation without intervention from the NAD. They only become involved when the individual has taken responsibility for their obligations under the ADA, and their requests have been denied without justification.

While the mother-in-laws action were wrong, it does not make the hospital right for refusing to provide for atheir patient's needs. After all, they are responsible to the patient, not the patient's mother-in-law.
 
jillio said:
Thanks for the clarification!

I doubt seriously that the ADA would become involved if there wasn't sufficient evidence of a violation. If it is a matter of a deaf individual not following proper procedure, or not taking action to request services, they will inform the individual of what action they need to take to remedy the situation without intervention from the NAD. They only become involved when the individual has taken responsibility for their obligations under the ADA, and their requests have been denied without justification.

While the mother-in-laws action were wrong, it does not make the hospital right for refusing to provide for atheir patient's needs. After all, they are responsible to the patient, not the patient's mother-in-law.
Click to expand...
You're right.

But, how did all of the situations start? The mother-in-law.

They could file a restraining order against the mother.
 
The mother in law is wrong for what she was trying to do with the baby's mother. I think she didnt like her that much!

Glad the couple got the baby back. Poor couple for what they went thru all these happen..

I blame on hospital and police for not doing the right way and didnt get an interpreter.
 
You know, I'm trying to figure out why the NAD is picking this case. There have GOT to be cases where actual injury has occurred because a Deaf person hasn't gotten an interpreter at a hospital. Given what is being reported it seems to be an odd "battle to fight".

UNLESS, the Deaf mother really IS mentally imbalanced and the hospital keeps releasing her because they don't provide an interpreter during the evaluation.

THAT makes more sense from a negligence stand point.

[Edited to correct an an acronym error]
 
Last edited:
FAWK!!! (Excuse me, My foul language angrily) against MIL because She is fucking greedy and being selfish assumption against Deaf Parent who cannot handle the recent birth baby.
"the mother-in-law who refused to let the deaf couple take their baby home."
Click to expand...
*cough* Wha... smart mil is outraged! Total WRONG MIL's assumption against to Deaf Couples!
MIL forcing her have c-section for birthing baby out early... and want take baby away from the birth mother! Ridcouisly Big time!
Without present an interpreter provided in hospital or else.. (expelled bleep)

This psychological evaluation also determined that Ms. Cuevas was not a threat to herself or to others and she was discharged.
Click to expand...
She is not psycho mother! Naturally She is Deaf. Wha.. heck mattah w/stupid MIL's mind?

Cannot believe that MIL kept complaint against Deaf Couples and not allowed have their baby back! All She want have baby for herself instead Deaf Couples! She is frigg'n greedy person!

The complaint also alleges that the deaf couple received assistance from the Legal Aid Society of Miami to ask the Hialeah police to help them get their baby back from the mother-in-law. Hialeah police refused to return the baby to the deaf couple without a court order because the Hialeah police had transported Ms. Cuevas to the hospital twice for involuntary commitment. During this encounter between the deaf couple, the Hialeah police, and the mother-in-law, the Hialeah police again did not provide qualified sign language interpreter services to ensure effective communication. About three weeks later, the deaf couple was finally able to obtain a court order and was reunited with their baby.
Click to expand...
Hallauah!!! *sigh* I hope Deaf Couple will not allow seeing their MIL rest of their life what more MIL gave hurts more and hard time w/them.. Geez!

If suppose Deaf Couples can file restraining order against their MIL! (sp)
Would be nice Yes!
 
Gobae said:
You know, I'm trying to figure out why the ADA is picking this case. There have GOT to be cases where actual injury has occurred because a Deaf person hasn't gotten an interpreter at a hospital. Given what is being reported it seems to be an odd "battle to fight".

UNLESS, the Deaf mother really IS mentally imbalanced and the hospital keeps releasing her because they don't provide an interpreter during the evaluation.

THAT makes more sense from a negligence stand point.
Click to expand...

Well, the NAD was asked for assistance in this case, I'm sure. And, actual harm has been done. But the issue is not the degree of harm that was actually experienced, but that a hospital did not comply with Federal mandates, and is in violation of the law.
 
Back
Top