This thread was inspired by my own experiences and this case.
I do understand that people may benefit from an interpreter, but as somebody who has been in the same situation as the above doctor it scares me. I take home less than a quarter of what he does but the amount you make should be immaterial. The basic fact is that if you receive less than $50 for a visit with a Medicare patient and if you are required to provide a sign language interpreter at $150 an hour with one hour minimum for each use then you cannot possibly stay in business. How will we ever have physicians seeing deaf Medicare patients if they know that they will have to pay at least $100 for each visit? I know that I shy away from taking on new deaf patients in my practice because of my experiences: after all, once you see a patient, you can’t discharge them from your practice without risking being sued under the ADA.
I try my best to be ADA compliant; my office is wheelchair accessible and I try to see patients on a need-based basis rather than on ability to pay. I do volunteer my time for screening clinics without compensation. I just don’t see how forcing somebody to operate at a loss cannot be considered a hardship.
I would say that the income of the business or owner should have no bearing on the issue. It reaks of, “hey, he has money, let’s take it from him”. You’re in a business to be in business, not to give handouts.
Also, the statement “his tax returns showed he earned over $400,000” would tend to imply he grossed that - are they considering his business expenses such as the cost of his office space, staff salaries, insurance, supplies, etc.? The doctor may not net very much in comparison.
I feel there’s more to this case, in ALL cases of the ADA and I’ve dealt a lot with them the person suing has to minimize expense. He could’ve easily written out everything.
The verdict in this case, if you read it close, seems to be inadequate care NOT a lack of an interpreter. You can’t say I demand an interpreter if another cheaper form of communication could be done.
It won’t wash. It’s like handicapped riding a bus. You’re entitled to a seat, if there is no seat available you can’t demand someone get up. You have to wait for the next bus, just like anyone else. We’ve had lots of cases like that in Chicago, and the judges have ruled that way.
I’m sure if he appeals the fine will come down. It does appear the doctor is lax for not trying very hard to communicate with his client. While she can’t demand things, he can’t simply ignore her or wave her off either.
There seems to be no middle ground here
The income of the business does come into play. A huge major corporation isn’t going to be burdened unduly by putting in rails and the like. A laywer just starting out may be burdened unduly.
For instance a lawyer just starting out could comply with ADA for people with wheelchair, if his office wasn’t wheelchair accessable simply by agreeing to meet his clients in a coffee shop next door that was. Or any other similar place that was private and wheelchair accessable.
The ADA doesn’t demand total equality it demands people try to make an effort and provide service IF they are able to.
I’m assuming you put this in GD because you don’t agree with the verdict. They didn’t give us all the facts, but a few things stand out to me:
-The doctor saw her 20 times, after which he told her to go see someone else after her repeated requests.
-She didn’t know the swelling was a side effect of her treatment.
-Half of the verdict was punitive damages.
The article notes the Borngesser case, which differentiated between “critical points.” It seems to me that a critical point in this case was when she was first referred to him. If the doctor felt that getting an interpreter was going to be too much of a hardship at that point, he should have referred her to another specialist. The fact that he kept seeing her and collecting fees for each appointment when he couldn’t even directly communicate with her shows a real disregard for his patient. My impression is that the doctor didn’t necessarily need to communicate with her during every appointment, just enough to learn her medical history and to talk to her about her treatment. For all we know, her insurer may have paid for an interpreter if the doctor had billed them for it.
I’m not sure whether I agree or disagree with the ruling in this case.
I do think that the plaintiff has the right to bring a malpractice suit.
I do think that the plaintiff has the right to change doctors if she prefers to use an interpreter.
I don’t think that the doctor should be required to pay to see patients or be subject to punitive damages. If a patient feels that written communication and the use of family members as interpreters is inadequate and it poses an economic hardship to the tune of 3x the payment for the visit to the doctor to see her and she has been informed of this then she should either provide an interpreter or find a doctor who has one available.
FWIW-I have personally been in this situation. Medicare does NOT pay for the interpreter. If the patient doesn’t show up (as happened to me more than once), then the interpreter still gets paid by the doctor. If there is an emergency and the doctor runs late, the interpreter still gets paid by the doctor. If the patient decides that she doesn’t like the interpreter then the doctor has to find another interpreter-at the doctor’s expense-to interpret at the next visit. As I said, I am now wary of taking on deaf patients since I can’t afford it.
The ADA requires that interpreters be provided for any non-English speaking patient at the doctor’s expense. Usually, however, this can be done via a telephone system that provides traslators for hundreds of languages and the cost is nowhere near that required to have a sign-language interpreter present.
I don’t know about Chicago, but the policy of PAT here in Pittsburgh is that the handicapped get first priority when it comes to seating-bus drivers can ask someone to vacate their seat if someone needs it gets it on the bus.