Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr. (Summary)

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr., No. 12-15059 (9th Cir. May 29, 2014)

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate, sued the hospital where his wife was treated for cancer and her physician, alleging that their refusal to provide a sign language interpreter violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act.

The plaintiff sought an injunction under Title III of the ADA, ordering the hospital and physician to provide appropriate aids to him to ensure effective communication.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that without the “imminent prospect of a future injury,” the plaintiff lacked standing and the claim could not go forward.  Although the plaintiff and his wife may have suffered past injuries, the plaintiff was not currently seeking admission to the hospital and his wife was no longer a patient.  As a result, there was no prospective harm an injunction could cure and the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claim, the appeals court ruled that the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations.  The appeals court held that each denial of an interpreter was a discrete and independent wrong.  Although the first denial occurred more than two years before the suit was filed, subsequent denials occurred within the actionable two-year window.