No Wheelchair Users Allowed in a Miami Beach Condo!

Litigation: Siler v. Abbott House Condo

By: Matthew Dietz

Rachel Siler was looking forward to moving to Miami Beach in April 2016.  Rachel went to art school in Chicago and after graduating from college she started working in the Independent Living and Disability Rights Movements. Aside from this passion she has also represented the disability community within the Occupy and Anti-war Movements. When she isn’t fighting for social justice she enjoys reading, antiquing and designing.

 For the past thirteen years, she had lived in cold and windy Chicago working at Chicago’s Access Living, assisting people with disabilities and a coordinator of Chicago ADAPT, an organization that has dedicated disability rights activists that engage in nonviolent direct action, including civil disobedience, to assure the civil and human rights of people with disabilities to live in freedom.  She found a job as an independent living specialist at the Center for Independent Living of South Florida and was ready to move to sunny Miami Beach.

As a wheelchair user herself, Rachel knew what she needed in order to live independently in Miami Beach.  She needed to live near to public transportation, a safe surrounding area, a building with an elevator, a residence that was affordable and accessible, and adequate green space so that her service animal, Minty could be walked.   Before moving down to Florida, she visited the area and hired a real estate agent. During her visit, she looked at eight residences. However, none these residences met her needs. When she returned home, the agent sent Rachel information about a condominium on Miami Beach at Abbot House Condominum, and it was perfect – one of the largest homes that she ever lived in.

She entered in to the lease with the owner of the condominium, and was told that a condition of moving in was physically meeting with the condominium association board screening committee and receiving written approval.  This was only supposed to be a formality.  So, Rachel spoke with the property manager, received permission to move her belongings in on May 21^st, and packed and started the trek across the United States with her mother and a friend.

When Rachel came to Miami on May 20^th, with her personal assistant, she did not get the reception that she was expecting.  The association manager met her and was shocked, he told her that she did not know that she had a “condition”.  She then went to a meeting with two of the board members of the Condominium.

Instead of speaking to Rachel, the board member started asking questions of Rachel’s assistant, as if Rachel could not speak for herself –

• “Do you live with her?”
• “Will you always be with her?”
• “Do you sleep with her?”

“No, she can speak for herself,”  said the assistant.  Rachel continued, and attempted to explain her existence, she explained that she works forty hours per week and she schedules personal assistants around that work schedule.  Notwithstanding the humiliation at having to explain the fact that she lives and works like any other person, the screening committee than attempted to try to convince Rachel why she should not live at Abbot House.

• The Board of Directors does not want to be held liable if something were to happen to you.
• The building only has one elevator, how are you going to work if the elevator broke?
• Fire fighters and paramedics do not want to climb stairs to rescue an elderly resident who was unable to evacuate due to a fire. The board did not have the funds to pay for modifications to make the building accessible.

Rachel told the Board that she would pay for any modifications to her own residence and the buildings elements are accessible to her and she did not need any modifications.  When they could not dissuade her, the association requested that she sign a waiver, releasing the condominium from all liability from any injuries.  To live in her home, she agreed, and then was provided the keys to the public areas, including the exterior door with the wheelchair ramp.

But before she could move in, the property manager told her that, the board that approved her tenancy to her face, now decided to decline her rental request, and followed up with an email:

This is to inform you that Ms. Rachel D. Siler, as a prospective tenant of Unit 4A, was denied by the Board of Abbott House Condo under the powers and duties of the Bylaws of the Association (See two (2) pages of the attachment).

By the understanding of the Board of Directors of ABBOTT HOUSE, INC. A CONDOMINIUM, the building has not the appropriate accessibility for people with disabilities conditions for the following reasons:

– The access to the building and other common areas as accessible route are not appropriate. We have not physical access like route, curb ramps, entrances and loading areas,

– There is not an appropriate parking space for a disable people. All of them are narrows,

– There is not a restroom and bathroom accommodation, etc.

All of the above are part of the main considerations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, the Association cannot be responsible for any future claim requested by Ms. Siler and any other officer of the Miami-Dade County

Stranded in Miami Beach, with no home, Rachel Siler, an independent living specialist, was in a nightmare that she would usually be the person who these issues would be reported to.  But in a new city, she did not know where to turn.  She reached out to Disability Independence Group.

On Monday, May 23, Rachel Siler, with the assistance of her family and her personal assistant, decided to move into her condominium in spite of Abbot House refusal to approve her lease in spite of their denial.  Until a lawsuit was filed, Rachel and her service animal were harassed and attempts were made to block her and her personal assistant from the property.

It is unlawful to deny a person housing based upon insurance liability concerns. Historically, people with disabilities have been stereotyped in many different ways. Some of the stereotypes used to label people with disabilities as incapable of living independently, having a job, having a social and sex life and enjoying their life to the fullest.

The most common barriers to persons with disabilities are not physical barriers, but the attitudinal barriers that lead to this type of discrimination.  The Fair Housing Act does not allow for exclusion of individuals based upon fear, speculation, or stereotype about a particular disability or persons with disabilities in general. This prohibition is both in housing, under the Fair Housing Act and with other accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  As discussed in the comments Americans with Disabilities Act, one “cannot refuse to serve a person with a disability because its insurance company conditions coverage or rates on the absence of persons with disabilities. This is a frequent basis of exclusion from a variety of community activities and is prohibited by this part.” See 28 C.F.R. § 36.202.

Turns out that the least of Abbot House Condominium’s worries should have been whether Rachel Siler would not be able to get around in her wheelchair and would injure herself. Maybe instead of assuming she was an invalid who sleeps with her personal assistant, the Condominium Board should have started with the premise that she had a job, a life, and a passion for helping others.  The real liability was the failure to acknowledge Rachel Siler as the die-hard disability advocate who works to help others destroy attitudinal barriers and harmful stereotypes.

 

At The Intersection of Disability and Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Myths and Misconceptions

By: Sharon Langer

Domestic violence myths and misconceptions abound. Nearly everyone will have some form of preconception on what domestic violence actually is; why abusers abuse and why victims are victimized.

In the same way as we tend to have a stereotypical picture of what domestic abuse is, we have similar pictures of what sort of person both the abused and the abuser are. We may assume the abused will have originated from a family where abuse took place, or may have been abused themselves during childhood. Some people believe the victim actually enjoys being abused in some masochistic way, or is encouraging it because they enjoy the attention of feeling victimized. Our perceptions tend to be distorted by domestic violence myths, perpetuated both by the media and by society in general, and are unrelated to the reality or the extent of Domestic Abuse. ANYBODY can become a victim of Domestic Abuse.

Following are some of the domestic violence myths and facts:

MYTH: Abuse only happens in certain “problem” families.

FACT :Abuse pervades every ethnic, social strata. White collar workers are just as likely to abuse their wives/partners as are blue-collar workers; financially independent people are just as likely to suffer abuse as are people on low incomes. It is not the social standing, the amount of stress lived under or the company kept which makes an abuser, but the internal need for power, the belief that they have the right to control someone else.

MYTH: Domestic Abuse is a family matter.

FACT: Abusing, battering, assaulting or raping another person is a criminal offence not a family matter.  Domestic Abuse has far-reaching social implications for everyone, affecting the abused person’s ability to lead a productive life and encouraging children brought up in an abusive home to repeat the cycle themselves and having a detrimental impact on their emotional and sometimes physical well-being. A lot of doctors and hospital time and funds are needed to help those who have been victimized or beaten.

MYTH: Domestic Abuse is not such a big problem – very few women are actually badly hurt.

FACT: Domestic Abuse is a HUGE problem. It is estimated that 1 in 4 women live in abusive relationships, and within our lifetime half of us can expect to be the victim of domestic or intimate partner violence. Abuse can be lethal. More women are killed by their partner or ex-partner than by a stranger. And even where physical violence has not occurred, the emotional scars can often have a lifelong effect on the victim.

MYTH: Some women ask for it, provoke it, want it or even deserve it.

FACT: NOBODY deserves to be beaten or abused. Women often have to walk on eggshells and try their best to avoid another incident. The abuser WANTS to abuse. This domestic violence myth encourages the blame-shifting from the abuser to the abused and avoids the stark reality that only the abuser is responsible for his/her own actions.

MYTH: Domestic Abuse is caused by excessive alcohol or the use of drugs.

FACT: A lot of research is going into the link between drug or alcohol use and violence. However, although some abusers are more prone to being violent when drunk, many more abuse when completely sober. Alcohol and drugs may increase the violence, but they do not cause it. Alcohol and drug abuse are separate issues from abuse, though they may overlap. Once again, blaming chemical dependency for abuse is missing the point, the abuser is responsible for their actions.

MYTH: Domestic abuse is a one-time incident.

FACT: Very rarely is abuse a one-time incident. Most often it is part of an ongoing means of establishing and maintaining control over another person. Abuse tends to increase both in velocity and extent over a period of time.

MYTH: It can’t be that bad, or she/he would leave.

FACT: There are many emotional, social, spiritual and financial hurdles to overcome before someone being abused can leave. Very often, the constant undermining of the victims self-belief and self-esteem can leave him/her with very little confidence, socially isolated, and without the normal decision-making abilities. Leaving or trying to leave will also often increase the violence or abuse, and can put both the victim and her children in a position of fearing for their lives. Leaving is the ultimate threat to the abusers power and control, and he will often do anything rather than let her go.

MYTH: Abusers are always coarse, violent, and easily identified

FACT: Abusers are often charming, popular, generous people who can hold positions of social standing. and authority. Abuse is kept in the privacy of their own homes. This “Jekyll and Hyde” tendency of the abuser can further confuse and frighten the person being abused, as the person in private is so different from the person everyone else sees. It can also mean that when the person being abused finally does try to tell his/her friends, family or acquaintances of the abuse, he or she is not believed, because the person they are describing simply doesn’t fit the image portrayed in public.

Litigation: Is Your Child A Runner?

Some children with autism, developmental or intellectual disabilities may wander off without any comprehension of possible danger.  This might include running off from adults at school or in the community, leaving the classroom without permission, or leaving the house when the family is not looking. While most children are drawn to water, many autistic children seem even more fascinated by it — and they’re also fearless.

 

On April 29, 2012, Hannah Sackman, a seven year old Autistic little girl drowned when she eloped from a housing development at military housing in Fort Gordon.  When Hannah’s mother was concerned with the size of the fens and the locking mechanism of the fence, she asked the management company if she could install additional locks on the doors that were higher up and out of Hannah’s reach. The house had three exterior doors and all of them had a locking mechanism on the knob and a dead-bolt – both of which could be unlocked from the inside with a simple twist and without using a key and Hannah’s mother was concerned she would figure out how to open them. In response to her request, the management said, “no, it was against policy” and would damage the doors. In 2013, Hannah’s parents sued the housing manager under the Fair Housing Act for the death of their daughter, and the case settled for an undisclosed amount in 2015.

What happened to Hannah Sackman is not unique, and the Fair Housing Act requires housing providers allow persons with disabilities or those associated with them to modify the premises if the modification is necessary for the person with a disability, and is done at the expense of the person with a disability.  For residents of public housing or other housing that is federally funded, the modifications must be done at the expense of the housing provider.  These modifications can be as simple as a lock on a front door, or grab bars in a shower; or as complicated or expensive, such as a pool lift, or installing ramps or sidewalks.

Kim Johnson came to Disability Independence Group because she was afraid to live in a home that would not be safe for her daughter.  Kalia is a 10 year old girl who lives with Fabry disease, which is a rare genetic disorder.  Along with a developmental disability, Kalia  also suffers from episodes of pain, is legally blind, hard of hearing, and problems with her gastrointestinal system and a cecostomy.  She requires twice daily flushing of her stoma which takes hours and hours of time.  Kalia is a runner, and whenever she has a chance, she tries to escape.  She knows how to unlock doors and turn handles.

In March of 2016, Kim was looking for a new rental home in Largo, Florida and found

Kim and Kalia Johnson

perfect home.  During the showing of the home and throughout the leasing process, Kim and Kim’s Mother, Donna, spoke with the leasing agent, and explained how urgent it was that they move and the needs of Kalia’s disability.  Then, with the help of Donna, Kim entered a lease for the home.    After signing the lease, the leasing agent, instructed Kim on the use of the front door lock.  At that time, Kim said that she would need to install a chain lock on the door to keep Kalia inside since she has a tendency to elope.  As with Hanna Sackman’s mother, Kim was concerned with the locking mechanism and wanted a mechanism that was higher up and out of Hannah’s reach.

The leasing agent refused.  Kim explained that a that the chain lock was the most reasonable modification asserted her rights under the Fair Housing Act, in order for her daughter …”to be able to have an equal opportunity to have safe access to the majority of the home.”  The leasing agent and owner refused to allow Kim to install a higher locking mechanism, as they believed that a chain on the door would damage the door.  Then the lessor refused to return the money Kim spent on the home, and refused to allow her to find another home that would be suitable for Kim and her daughter.

Reasonable modification in housing is the law.  A landlord cannot legally deny a reasonable modification to a home.  In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued joint guidance on the requirements relating to reasonable modifications under the Fair Housing Act.[1]

Adding a chain lock to the front door is the most reasonable, most effective modification given K.J.’s disability.  The chain-lock modification is the most reasonable modification because the chain lock would be out of K.J.’s reach and would successful prevent K.J. from eloping. Pursuant to HUD’s guidance, adding a chain-lock to the front door is necessary because the other suggested modifications will not be effective.  By denying Kim and her daughter Kalia an accommodation, this landlord denied them a safe home, solely due to Kalia’s disability.

[1] Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice: Reasonable Modifications Under the Fair Housing Act (March 5, 2008),  http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf (last visited May 10, 2016).

Summer Fun and Discrimination against Kids (with or without disabilities)!

By: Matthew Dietz

Unless the housing facility is a qualified 55 and over housing development, a housing provider cannot have rules that treat children differently, and less favorably than adults. When the US Congress amended the Fair Housing Act in 1988, it prohibited housing practices that discriminate on the basis of familial status.When it amended the Act, Congress recognized that “families with children are refused housing despite their ability to pay for it.” In addition, Congress cited a HUD survey that found 25% of all rental units exclude children and that 50% of all rental units have policies that restrict families with children in some way. The HUD survey also revealed that almost 20% of families with children were forced to live in less desirable housing because of restrictive policies. Congress recognized these problems and sought to remedy them by amending the Fair Housing Act to make families with children a protected class. So any rules, that do not have a legitimate safety justification, cannot indicate a “preference, limitation, or discrimination” against children under the age of 18. This includes rules that prohibit children from common areas in the facility with or without supervision, or limit the facilities of the housing development to adults. All rules must apply to children and adults equally, and cannot solely target children’s behavior.

If rules have a legitimate safety rationale, then such rules may be legitimate. But, again rules such as all children under sixteen must be supervised by an adult does not have a safety rationale, but a discriminatory basis against loud teenagers. On the other hand, a fifteen year old at a gym may injure him or herself on free weights without having supervision.

Summer camp must be inclusive

Over the past fifteen years, I have had several cases involving children who were not permitted to go to the summer camp of their choice, or were segregated in the summer camp because of the child’s disabilities. A summer camp, like any other public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, must provide reasonable accommodations for campers with disabilities, and must not segregate them from other students. Camps operated by governmental entities or colleges have a broader duty to accommodate campers with disabilities than some private entities that do
not have the same resources as a governmental entity. Examples of situations which I have encountered over the years are as follows:

• Children who are Deaf – Deaf kids have the right to a qualified sign language interpreter for all programs and services of a camp that involve communication that is long, complex, or important. Examples of this would be instructions on how to play a complicated game, story time, puppet shows, and educational instruction. If there are games that involve communication, then an interpreter would be appropriate so the Deaf child is included.
• Autistic kids – If a child who lives with autism has a one-on-one aide at school, for the same reasons, that child may need a one-on-one aide at a camp. Further, if a child needs further instruction in a game, or assistance with social interactions, that would be an accommodation that must be provided.
• Kids who have a medical condition such as Diabetes – If a child has a medical condition, or needs assistance with a medical condition, such as diabetes or HIV, then the question is whether the child poses a direct threat to his or her own health or the safety of others. If a child needs minor assistance with a medical condition, or can manage his or her own medical needs and monitoring, a camp cannot discriminate against these children.
• Kids with mobility impairments or other physical disabilities – Camps, like any other public accommodations, must have their facility accessible to children with disabilities. Older camps must do modifications that are readily achievable, easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense, and those camps altered or built after 1991 must be constructed accessibly. The camp is also responsible for making reasonable accommodations for campers with disabilities, which may involve some personal services, such as assistance in dressing, if similar services are available for able bodied campers.
• Kids with allergies – Kids who have allergies cannot be excluded from camps, and camps must be prepared to exclude certain allergens to accommodate a camper, and be trained in the event a camper has an allergic reaction. It would not be unreasonable to expect camp counselors to learn how to administer epinephrine auto-injector (“Epi-pen”) shots and dispense asthma medication, assist in administering Diastat for seizures in emergencies or otherwise teach camp counselors in basic first aid or CPR.

Parents can choose to send their child to a segregated camp, because some camps may provide special skills or advantages for children with disabilities, but the choice of going to a specialized camp is a choice, such as camps where all children are deaf.
However, all children may not be able to go to integrated camps. For example, there may be children with developmental disabilities or intellectual disabilities who would not be able to care for themselves at a sleep-away camp, and it would be a fundamental alteration of the camp’s programs to develop a program for one child’s disability. Further, if a child is dependent on mechanical supports, a camp would not be required to hire medical personnel to accommodate medically complex children. For these kids specialized camps are a phenomenal way to get out and enjoy the community. For example, Nicklaus Children’s hospital operates the VACC camp for technologically dependent children which includes swimming, field trips to local attractions,campsite entertainment, structured games, “free play”, to promote family growth and development while enhancing these kids’ self-esteem and social skills.

It’s so damn hot – my kid has asthma and needs an air conditioner

Last year, we represented a mother who had a child who lived in HUD-subsidized low-income housing. Asthma is often triggered by inhalation of air particles that contain allergens such as pollen, mold spores, dust mite droppings and animal dander. Air conditioners contain filters that collect and store these particles, keeping intake to minimum. Air conditioning also helps eliminate humidity on hot Florida nights which enables mold and algae to grow much more rapidly than it could if it were living in dry air. Some children and adults suffer from asthma to the degree that not having air conditioning may result in serious harm and hospitalization. Requesting to install an air conditioner unit in a home or apartment would be a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability.

According to the Fair Housing Act, a tenant with a disability can request a reasonable modification. According to HUD Guidance, “A reasonable modification is a structural change made to existing premises, occupied or to be occupied by a person with a disability, in order to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises. Reasonable modifications can include structural changes to interiors and exteriors of dwellings and to common and public use areas.” Under the Fair Housing Act, a housing provider must permit the modification, the tenant is responsible for paying the cost of the modification. If the housing provider is a public housing authority or a housing provider that receives federal financial assistance, the modification must be paid for by the housing provider unless providing the modification would be an undue financial and administrative burden.
Another example modifications can be a pool lift!

Discrimination in Pool Rules

• No inflatable flotation devices.
• Water wings, swimmies, floats, bathing suits rings, and other inflatable devices are not permitted in the pools.
• Absolutely no dogs allowed in pool area

Also, under the Fair Housing Act, persons with disabilities can ask for “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford … person(s) [with disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” So when a person is required to use water wings, floats, special swimming devices, they can do so. In order to request an accommodation, the person needing an accommodation should ask the housing provider, and if the disability is not obvious, then the person may need to obtain verification from a doctor, therapist, or any other provider verifying the disability and need for the accommodation.

In addition, “no dogs allowed” rules do not apply to service or emotional support animals, where their presence is necessary for the person with a disability equal use and enjoyment of the premises. The Fair Housing Act and the ADA does not override public health rules that prohibit dogs in swimming pools. However, service animals must be allowed on the pool deck and in other areas where others are allowed to go.

The Cuddle Effect

By: Matthew Dietz

Cuddles, the Persian cat, was worth a million dollars to Izak Teller and his wife, Barbara. Because of Cuddles, they were rejected from the ability to live in a fully renovated unit overlooking the Intercostal in Palm Beach, and bought a less desirable unit that they were required to renovate. The matter settled, and the Tellers received a settlement of $275,000 to vindicate their rights under the Fair Housing Act. This equates to an amount that is worth twice of Cuddles’ weight in gold.

Cuddles was Barbara’s emotional support animal. For over 20 years, Barbara suffered from spinal injury which caused her extreme pain and limited her mobility. This caused her significant pain, depression and anxiety. She found that having Cuddles reduced her anxiety and depression, and lessened her reliance on psychotropic medication. In 2011, Izak Teller was diagnosed with stage three colon cancer, and while recovery from stage three cancer is difficult, with the support of Cuddles, Izak pulled through and was cured.

In 2011, Izak and Barbara wanted to live at the Cove, a luxury apartment in Palm Beach. The apartment was fully renovated and move-in ready, with a cabana. It was the deal of a lifetime and too good to pass up, but it had a no pets rule. Izak and Barbara contracted for the apartment and advised the condominium association, as they had done in previous apartments, that Cuddles was Barbara’s support animal, and permitted under the Fair Housing Act. Cuddles did not leave the apartment, and as demonstrated above, slept for much of the day. He was a house cat.

However, an owner, an attorney from New York, who lived on the same floor said no. She did not want Cuddles, and since she was allergic to cats, if Cuddles was allowed to move in, then she was going to sue. The Cove Condominium Association was in a difficult position – between a cat and a New York lawyer. The condominium sided with their resident under threat of a lawsuit and said no to the Tellers. The Tellers lost the deal and bought a condominium without a cabana in Palm Beach, and spent a considerable sum renovating the condominium. Izak Teller did much of the renovation himself, despite being treated for stage four cancer, but they still were with Cuddles.

While the Cove was in an unenviable position – between a house cat and a New York lawyer— the Fair Housing Act requires a housing provider to make reasonable accommodations in no pet rules when it is necessary to afford the person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The only defense a housing provider can have is if the accommodation would be a fundamental alteration of the housing provider’s programs or services or if it would be an undue financial or administrative burden. There is no determination of whether the housing provider intentionally discriminated based on the person’s disability.

The neighbor who threatened to sue admitted to exposing herself to cats, cat dander and cat hair when she visits a friend’s apartment and when a friend who owns a cat visits her in her home. The neighbor takes an antihistamine which alleviates her symptoms and she has not had adverse side effects. As such, Cuddles the Cat would not have an undue burden to her or any other resident of the Cove Association. However, even if the neighbor was highly allergic to cats, the Tellers explained that Cuddles is a house cat, and that because each apartment had an individual air condition unit that is separate from the building air conditioning, the cat hair or dander would not affect any other tenant. Further, the cat will be brought to the unit in a closed carry case and will stay in the unit with Mrs. Teller; and any allergist would not be able to testify with reasonable medical certainty that the board member’s allergies could be affected under these circumstances.

On or about February 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Palm Beach County Office of Equal Opportunity (“OEO”) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) related to this matter. On October 26, 2013, the Palm Beach County Office of Equal Opportunity and HUD issued a finding of Cause against The Cove. Subsequently, the Disability Independence Group, and the law offices of Herb M. Milgrim. P.A. brought an action on behalf of the Tellers in Palm Beach Circuit and obtained a $275,000 settlement through mediation.

In November, Cuddles passed away after her own illness, and he will be fondly remembered by all who knew her.

Mindfulness and Law Practice

None of us likes the idea that our doctor is practicing on us, but she is. None of us likes the idea that our lawyer is practicing on us, but he is. We may dislike even more the idea that we are practicing law on our clients…but we are!

By: Benjamin Goodman

If you practice in the legal field, you have been practicing to practice since before you were even licensed, before law school even. And, once you are licensed, you continue to practice, and to learn, and to become better at practicing. Hopefully, the better you get at it, the more value you are providing to your clients, and the more they are valuing you.

Mindfulness practice is also a practice. It is not buying a meditation CD and trying to force yourself to relax for 20 minutes with your office door closed during lunch time. It is not watching a YouTube video of Jon Kabat Zin giving a Google Chat, or watching Matthieu Ricard giving a Ted Talk, or attending a conference featuring Ven Robina Courtin. It is not going to Yoga once a week. It is not any of these things…but it is all of them and more.

As with the practice of law, mindfulness practice takes time, learning, and patience. More importantly it takes a willingness to make time, to submit to teaching, and to be patient. Most importantly, it requires a daily commitment to do these things for as long as it takes.

Most of us could not have passed the bar exam straight out of undergrad, no matter how good we were. Most of us could not have passed the bar exam right after graduating from law school without having crammed intensely for at least two of the most horrible months of our lives. Most of us will not make partner at a prestigious law firm immediately upon being admitted to practice.

Mindfulness, as you learn to practice it, may help you with many things. In time, it will likely reduce stress. It will likely improve your communication skills. It will likely make you a better mediator, trial attorney, or judge. However, a law professor friend of mine reflected recently that mindfulness is supposed to help everyone these days…from pregnant mothers to drone pilots to obnoxious attorneys. But what good is mindfulness if it just makes you better at ripping everyone around you to shreds?

My answer would be that through mindfulness practice, you may become aware, perhaps for the first time, of what you are doing and why you are doing it. Maybe, just maybe, the shreds of human flesh will start to leave a bad taste in your mouth, and you will choose to stop. You are not a shark. You are an advocate for truth and justice for all.

Are Doctors Required to Provide Interpreters for Deaf Patients?

By: Matthew Dietz

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

Modern Hippocratic Oath

At least once per week, I receive a call from a Deaf person complaining that their doctor will not provide them a sign language interpreter for their visit to the doctor. The doctor insists that the patient should communicate by passing notes back and forth or by trying to lip read. If the Deaf person insists on an interpreter, the doctor demands that the Deaf person pay the costs of the interpreter.

Why is this wrong?

For many persons in the Deaf population, English is not their primary language, American Sign Language is their primary language. The Deaf person’s English ability may be in the Elementary School level. Also, the majority of English speech sounds emanates from the tongue, throat, breath, and are invisible on the lips. Only about 30% of English speech sounds appear on the lips. Approximately 70% of speech reading involves guesswork apart from the actual information received by viewing speech on the mouth. During a discussion on medical information, where the patient is usually nervous and anxious, this type of guesswork leads to misunderstandings, and may place the patient in serious danger. Also, written notes may be acceptable for short and simple conversations, such as asking a question in a store, but not when the information is long, important or complex.

Why are Qualified Interpreters necessary?

Sign Language interpreters are highly experienced professionals that have specialized expertise and training. While proficiency in English and in Sign Language is necessary, language skills alone are not sufficient for an individual to work as a professional interpreter. Becoming an interpreter is a complex process that requires a high degree of linguistic and technical skills. According to ADA Regulations, a qualified interpreter is required to be able to interpret accurately, both expressively and receptively using any specialized vocabulary needed for the communication. While professional certification is not required under the law, an important measure of an interpreter’s proven ability is professional credentials by an accrediting organization such as Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. (RID)

Does the Law Require Doctors to provide interpreters?

A doctor’s office is a public accommodation that is required to provide auxiliary aids and services, such as an interpreter for the appointments. It also requires that the doctor provide an interpreter to a companion of a patient that the doctor would normally communicate with during the appointment.

Are there any benefits to providing interpreters for the doctor?

Besides the basic benefit that doctors are able to communicate with their patient, be compassionate and understanding to the Deaf patient’s needs, the Internal Revenue Service provides a “Disabled Access Tax Credit” for 50% of all amounts spent on services for the Deaf, after the first $250.00 is spent, this amounts are in addition to the 50% deduction for the business expense. So if you have several Deaf patients, the tax benefit pays for the price of the interpreter.

When can a Doctor decide not to provide an interpreter?

1. Where the information conveyed is short, simple and not important. If the visit is to provide a flu shot, with not much discussion or conversation, then passing notes may be acceptable; however, if the patient has a pre-existing condition that would cause a side effect from the shot, an interpreter may be required.

2. When providing an interpreter is an “undue burden”. If providing an interpreter for $75 would have a substantial material effect on the overall resources of the doctor’s office. This may be the case if the doctor’s office has a very few patients and can hardly make ends meet. When a doctor has an active medical practice, it does not matter whether the cost of the interpreter exceeds the amount of the doctor’s appointment. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

How do you ask for an Interpreter?

1. Ask for the interpreter when you make the appointment.
2. If they say no, then ask to speak to the office manager or the doctor.
3. Ask the office manager or the doctor.
4. If they say no, say that you are deaf and you will not understand if you do not get an interpreter. Tell them that it’s your right under the ADA, and provide them this article or information from the ADA website about medical information.
5. Try to ask for their fax number so you can give them the information.
6. Call before the appointment to make sure than an interpreter will be there.

What to do if the Doctor says no?

1. If the doctor leases space from a medical building that is owned by a hospital, call the hospital’s interpreter services and ask them to provide an interpreter for the doctor’s office. Under the ADA, the person who owns the space where the medical office is located may also be responsible for the accommodation. This is the case where the building owner focuses on having all doctors and medical offices in its building

2. Call up the insurance company.

Most insurance companies receive and administer Medicare policies, especially those that are a part of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare), and if they do, they are not allowed to discriminate in their programs and services under a law called Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Tell them that the doctor on their plan refused to provide an interpreter and you want to see a doctor that will provide an interpreter.

Insurance Companies are not always that helpful.

I asked Kayla, Disability Independence Group’s client concierge, to call up several insurance companies to ask them if they would cover the cost of interpreters if the doctors would not. This is what occurred:

Humana

I called their customer service asked: “If someone is deaf and their doctor cannot give them an interpreter when they ask because the doctor’s insurance doesn’t cover it, will the patient’s insurance cover it?”
*Put on hold while they researched the answer*
They said they weren’t sure what the answer was and maybe sales would know, that maybe it was a benefit of one of the policies.

I asked if they had anything on their website about it, they asked if I had seen anything on the website about it, I said no, and they said there probably isn’t anything on the website then. They said they would connect me to sales. I was put on hold for sales then sales disconnected me. I tried again and I kept on being transferred.

Aetna

I called their main line at 1-800-872-3862 and was directed to sales, specific for the state I lived in and whether your plan is private or employer. I said it was a private plan (like a Medicare plan), and I was told that obtaining an interpreter would depend on your plan if insurance would cover an interpreter. Nothing on their website about it. I also sent the question online in their question/contact form but haven’t heard back yet. Then, when I called, I was transferred over from sales to someone else, went back to “general questions” people. I just kept getting transferred from person to person and everyone said someone else would know better than them…I never got an answer from anyone.

Assurant Health

On their website say they accept TTY calls and to let them know if you need assistance when contacting them in general. Did not see this on the Aetna or Humana websites. Called 1-800-553-7654. Spoke to them and they said “we have Spanish interpreters” even though I explicitly said for someone who is deaf or hearing impaired. They said they do not have that.

Matt, I want to sue my doctor for not providing an interpreter!!!

Anyone can sue. But, the only relief that Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act provides is to force the doctor that you would like to use to provide you with an interpreter. Title III of the ADA does not provide a claim for money damages. This may be different for states other than Florida that have laws that provide more remedies than the ADA, such as California.

So, I would always have concerns about suing a doctor that I would want to see. The same concerns that I would have about being rude to a waiter who is serving my food.

Under the ADA, a doctor cannot refuse to see you if you complained or filed a suit against him, but, again, would you feel comfortable in treating with a doctor that you are suing. If you would go back to the hospital, then, it’s your right!

When can I sue and receive money for discrimination?

The question that is always asked of lawyers! There are two circumstances where damages could be obtained without being required to go back to the doctor that you are suing.

1. If the doctor’s office has over fifteen employees and they accept Medicare or Medicaid, they would need to provide interpreters under the Rehabilitation Act. Under the Rehabilitation Act, you would need to make sure that you asked the doctor and office manager for an interpreter, and if they said no, you told them about your rights, and they still continued to deny you an interpreter.
2. By complaining to the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice brought a case on your behalf against the doctor.

Other Resources.

1. Filing a complaint with the Department of Justice. http://www.ada.gov/filing_complaint.htm
If you are deaf and cannot communicate in English, call up the Department of Justice ADA Information Line at 1-800-514-0301 to schedule an appointment for them to take the complaint by phone. If you file a complaint, the complaint may also be referred to the Key Bridge ADA mediation program, which will give you an opportunity to resolve the case without substantial delay.

2. If the office has over 15 employees or a hospital, you can complain to the Department of Health and Human Services at https://ocrportal.hhs.gov/ocr/smartscreen/main.jsf
If you are deaf and cannot communicate in English, call up the Department of Health and Human Services, at 1-800-368-1019,to schedule an appointment for them to take the complaint by phone

Litigation: When the denial of a reasonable accommodation leads to tragedy

By: Matthew Dietz

Most times when a person requests a reasonable accommodation or a modification because of a disability, the accommodation or modification assists a person to live independently or lessens the effect of a disability. This includes a closer parking space, grab bars in the bathroom, or an assistance animal. However, there are many times when a need for an accommodation is a matter of life and death. In a recent case filed by DIG and Belvin Perry of Morgan & Morgan, the denial of a reasonable accommodation led to Samuel Rosario’s death at his apartment at the Logan Heights Apartments in Sanford, Florida.

Sammy Rosario had four adult children, two boys and two girls, and many grandchildren, but he valued his stubborn independence and insisted on living on his own. Sammy lived at Redding Gardens, a Public Housing Property where only elderly and disabled individuals were admitted. He was admitted to this specific property because he lived with numerous medical conditions, including memory loss, seizure disorder, and mobility impairments.

In October 2011, Orlando Housing Authority (OHA) assisted in the relocation of residents that lived at Redding Gardens, and Sammy was moved by OHA to Logan Heights Apartments, a privately owned, tax credit, multi-family development. Sammy was relocated to a one bedroom apartment on the third story, with access by three flights of stairs. However, on the same day of the move, the OHA Relocation Specialist telephoned Sammy’s daughter, Stephanie Fernandez, to tell her that her father could barely make it to his second floor apartment at Redding Gardens and OHA refused to allow Sammy into the moving truck to the new apartment.

Stephanie frantically searched for her dad and could not find him at either development, so the entire family conducted a dragnet for Sammy Rosario. Sammy Rosario was found lost, delirious and bleeding close to a major highway. An ambulance was called and he was taken to the hospital. Once released, Sammy could not see. He was legally blind. Stephanie called the relocation specialist, informed them of her dad’s condition, his inability to live independently or on the third floor, and requested assistance for her father to live in a first floor apartment and to be allowed to live with an aide. No action was taken on their request.

For the next two years, Sammy, and his daughters Stephanie and Stacie, provided, asked, and pleaded for a first floor apartment and the ability to have a live in aide for Sammy, so he could live as independently as possible. They provided doctors notes, but were given various excuses by OHA, including the lack of adequate funding for relocation.

In the fall of 2012, the Social Security Administration denied Sammy Rosario’s application for Social Security Disability. Because Mr. Rosario’s disability was so obvious, Mr. Rosario appealed the decision. However, notwithstanding the determination of Mr. Rosario’s doctors of his disability, OHA decided that Mr. Rosario was now not considered “disabled”. This was due to a finding of the Social Security Administration that Mr. Rosario was not classified as disabled and Mr. Rosario and his daughters were advised that no accommodation would be provided and that Mr. Rosario was now not even entitled to a rent subsidy based upon his disability.

Stephanie did not accept this determination, reviewed the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations on her own, and advised the housing authority that the denial of an accommodation was contrary to HUDs own regulations, as the HUD regulations specifically permit a finding of disability on factors other than a finding from social security. It just did not make sense as if the Social Security Administration was wrong in its determination, Sammy would be entitled to retroactive payments; however, if the housing authority was wrong, it could not retroactively give Sammy his accommodation he needs to live independently. In August of 2013, Sammy Rosario and Stephanie Fernandez had enough, and they filed a Fair Housing Claim against OHA. Even after the filing, the OHA affirmed their denial, but advised Ms. Fernandez that “Should Mr. Rosario win his appeal to the Social Security Administration’s denial, please contact our office and we will reconsider our decision.”

Social Security reversed its decision and granted Sammy Rosario benefits back to September 2011 – less than three months after the filing of the fair housing complaint – but OHA did not reconsider. Instead, they advised that Ms. Fernandez would need to go through the entire reasonable accommodation process again. Instead of allowing Mr. Rosario the accommodation he needed, the OHA decided to use the accommodation as a negotiating point in the fair housing investigative process instead of immediately providing the necessary accommodation.

On March 19, 2015, Samuel Rosario had an accident where he fell, causing injury to his head and bruising to his eyes. He was admitted into the hospital for nine days, where he received needed physical therapy. Soon after arriving back home on May 29th, 2015, Mr. Rosario was found dead in the kitchen of his apartment. After an investigation and autopsy, it was determined that the cause of Mr. Rosario’s death was an unwitnessed fall, causing head injury. After completing the investigation, the Sanford Police Department determined that Samuel Rosario was injured while experiencing an unwitnessed seizure and was desperately seeking for help. The evidence of the trail of blood led from his bedroom to the bathroom, where there was a considerable amount of blood. The blood trail continued into the kitchen where Samuel Rosario experienced another seizure or fainted and hit his head, which was ultimately determined as the cause of his death.

On August 29, 2014, the Florida Commission on Human Relations determined that there was cause to believe that Samuel Rosario was denied a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. However, unlike the reversal of the Social Security Disability determination, the denial of an accommodation cannot be granted retroactively, and Stephanie and her brothers and sister cannot bring their father back.

If Sammy Rosario had a live in aide, he would not have died. He would not have fallen, and if he had fallen, he would not have bled to death alone in his home. Over fifty percent of all fair housing complaints filed against housing providers in the United States are as a result of a denial of a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification in a home. Most of these accommodations cost nothing to a provider, yet may mean the difference between living independently and living in an assisted living facility or nursing home, or as in this case, the difference between life and death. For a federally subsidized housing provider, such as the Orlando Housing Authority, the subsidized housing provider has the obligation to pay for and provide a modification to the premises (such as a roll in shower or permanent ramp), or an accommodation by a change in a rule, such as a larger apartment to accommodate a live in aide, or relocation to a first floor apartment.

Disability Independence Group and Morgan & Morgan is pleased to represent the family of Samuel Rosario to ensure that a housing provider cannot ignore the needs of their residents with disabilities, and that accommodations are essential to independent living.

Litigation: When the denial of a reasonable accommodation leads to tragedy

By: Matthew Dietz

Most times when a person requests a reasonable accommodation or a modification because of a disability, the accommodation or modification assists a person to live independently or lessens the effect of a disability. This includes a closer parking space, grab bars in the bathroom, or an assistance animal. However, there are many times when a need for an accommodation is a matter of life and death. In a recent case filed by DIG and Belvin Perry of Morgan & Morgan, the denial of a reasonable accommodation led to Samuel Rosario’s death at his apartment at the Logan Heights Apartments in Sanford, Florida.

Sammy Rosario had four adult children, two boys and two girls, and many grandchildren, but he valued his stubborn independence and insisted on living on his own. Sammy lived at Redding Gardens, a Public Housing Property where only elderly and disabled individuals were admitted. He was admitted to this specific property because he lived with numerous medical conditions, including memory loss, seizure disorder, and mobility impairments.

In October 2011, Orlando Housing Authority (OHA) assisted in the relocation of residents that lived at Redding Gardens, and Sammy was moved by OHA to Logan Heights Apartments, a privately owned, tax credit, multi-family development. Sammy was relocated to a one bedroom apartment on the third story, with access by three flights of stairs. However, on the same day of the move, the OHA Relocation Specialist telephoned Sammy’s daughter, Stephanie Fernandez, to tell her that her father could barely make it to his second floor apartment at Redding Gardens and OHA refused to allow Sammy into the moving truck to the new apartment.

Stephanie frantically searched for her dad and could not find him at either development, so the entire family conducted a dragnet for Sammy Rosario. Sammy Rosario was found lost, delirious and bleeding close to a major highway. An ambulance was called and he was taken to the hospital. Once released, Sammy could not see. He was legally blind. Stephanie called the relocation specialist, informed them of her dad’s condition, his inability to live independently or on the third floor, and requested assistance for her father to live in a first floor apartment and to be allowed to live with an aide. No action was taken on their request.

For the next two years, Sammy, and his daughters Stephanie and Stacie, provided, asked, and pleaded for a first floor apartment and the ability to have a live in aide for Sammy, so he could live as independently as possible. They provided doctors notes, but were given various excuses by OHA, including the lack of adequate funding for relocation.

In the fall of 2012, the Social Security Administration denied Sammy Rosario’s application for Social Security Disability. Because Mr. Rosario’s disability was so obvious, Mr. Rosario appealed the decision. However, notwithstanding the determination of Mr. Rosario’s doctors of his disability, OHA decided that Mr. Rosario was now not considered “disabled”. This was due to a finding of the Social Security Administration that Mr. Rosario was not classified as disabled and Mr. Rosario and his daughters were advised that no accommodation would be provided and that Mr. Rosario was now not even entitled to a rent subsidy based upon his disability.

Stephanie did not accept this determination, reviewed the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations on her own, and advised the housing authority that the denial of an accommodation was contrary to HUDs own regulations, as the HUD regulations specifically permit a finding of disability on factors other than a finding from social security. It just did not make sense as if the Social Security Administration was wrong in its determination, Sammy would be entitled to retroactive payments; however, if the housing authority was wrong, it could not retroactively give Sammy his accommodation he needs to live independently. In August of 2013, Sammy Rosario and Stephanie Fernandez had enough, and they filed a Fair Housing Claim against OHA. Even after the filing, the OHA affirmed their denial, but advised Ms. Fernandez that “Should Mr. Rosario win his appeal to the Social Security Administration’s denial, please contact our office and we will reconsider our decision.”

Social Security reversed its decision and granted Sammy Rosario benefits back to September 2011 – less than three months after the filing of the fair housing complaint – but OHA did not reconsider. Instead, they advised that Ms. Fernandez would need to go through the entire reasonable accommodation process again. Instead of allowing Mr. Rosario the accommodation he needed, the OHA decided to use the accommodation as a negotiating point in the fair housing investigative process instead of immediately providing the necessary accommodation.

On March 19, 2015, Samuel Rosario had an accident where he fell, causing injury to his head and bruising to his eyes. He was admitted into the hospital for nine days, where he received needed physical therapy. Soon after arriving back home on May 29th, 2015, Mr. Rosario was found dead in the kitchen of his apartment. After an investigation and autopsy, it was determined that the cause of Mr. Rosario’s death was an unwitnessed fall, causing head injury. After completing the investigation, the Sanford Police Department determined that Samuel Rosario was injured while experiencing an unwitnessed seizure and was desperately seeking for help. The evidence of the trail of blood led from his bedroom to the bathroom, where there was a considerable amount of blood. The blood trail continued into the kitchen where Samuel Rosario experienced another seizure or fainted and hit his head, which was ultimately determined as the cause of his death.

On August 29, 2014, the Florida Commission on Human Relations determined that there was cause to believe that Samuel Rosario was denied a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. However, unlike the reversal of the Social Security Disability determination, the denial of an accommodation cannot be granted retroactively, and Stephanie and her brothers and sister cannot bring their father back.

If Sammy Rosario had a live in aide, he would not have died. He would not have fallen, and if he had fallen, he would not have bled to death alone in his home. Over fifty percent of all fair housing complaints filed against housing providers in the United States are as a result of a denial of a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification in a home. Most of these accommodations cost nothing to a provider, yet may mean the difference between living independently and living in an assisted living facility or nursing home, or as in this case, the difference between life and death. For a federally subsidized housing provider, such as the Orlando Housing Authority, the subsidized housing provider has the obligation to pay for and provide a modification to the premises (such as a roll in shower or permanent ramp), or an accommodation by a change in a rule, such as a larger apartment to accommodate a live in aide, or relocation to a first floor apartment.

Disability Independence Group and Morgan & Morgan is pleased to represent the family of Samuel Rosario to ensure that a housing provider cannot ignore the needs of their residents with disabilities, and that accommodations are essential to independent living.

A Note From Matt…

By: Matthew Dietz

 

 

Disability Independence Group in Your Community

Litigation has its limitations. It directly effects one person’s conflict with another. This month, we are focusing on the different ways that DIG is impacting and raising awareness in the community as a whole. Our goal is to catalyze systemic change – and this month, we are providing testing accommodations, domestic violence services for the Deaf, transition services to ensure community-based living, police related safety for persons with autism spectrum disorders, and ordinances to secure emergency care for service animals.

 

Can you DIG it?