Ervine v. Desert View Regional Medical Center Holdings, LLC
753 F.3d 862
9th Cir.2014Background
- Charlene Ervine (decedent) and her husband Sie Ervine are deaf and communicate primarily in ASL; Charlene received care in Pahrump, NV from Desert View Regional Medical Center and Dr. Georges Tannoury.
- The Ervines allege repeated refusals to provide sign-language interpreters during medical visits from August 2007 through 2009; Advocacy Resource Center log entries document complaints and inquiries about interpreter availability.
- Mr. Ervine sued (individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate) under Title III of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and state tort claims; defendants moved for summary judgment as time-barred.
- The district court initially denied summary judgment on limitations grounds, then (on reconsideration) admitted Advocacy Center log entries as adopted statements and found the claims time-barred; Mr. Ervine appealed.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit considered: (1) whether Mr. Ervine has Article III standing to pursue Title III injunctive relief, and (2) whether Section 504 claims accrue anew for each discrete denial of effective communication (statute of limitations accrual).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Title III injunctive relief | Ervine seeks injunction to require auxiliary aids; asserts awareness of barriers and deterrence | Desert View and Tannoury contend Ervine lacks imminent threat because he is not a patient and has no plan to return | Held: No standing — Ervine failed to show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury; Title III claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Accrual of Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) claims | Each denial of effective communication is a separate injury that restarts the limitations clock | Defendants say claims accrued at first denial and subsequent denials are time-barred | Held: Each discrete and independently wrongful denial accrues a new claim; allegations after the limitations cutoff are timely if within period |
| Use of prior acts as background vs. separate claims | Ervine: prior denials support a continuing violation or background for later timely claims | Defendants: past denials bar later suit if outside limitations period | Held: Prior acts may be background but do not bar timely claims alleging independently discriminatory discrete acts (adopting Morgan principles) |
| Admissibility / reliance on Advocacy Center log entries (procedural) | Ervine relied on logbook entries and his deposition to establish timing of denials within limitations period | Defendants relied on Ervine’s adoption of log statements to support untimeliness | Held: District court’s evidentiary conclusions affected its timeliness ruling; appellate court reversed the untimeliness finding and remanded for further proceedings consistent with discrete-act accrual rule |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete discriminatory acts each start a new limitations period; prior acts may be background evidence)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing for ADA injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat of repeated injury)
- Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing discrete acts from delayed consequences; discrete denials trigger new accrual)
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (Title III injunctive relief requires demonstration of likely repetition or deterrence)
- Cherosky v. Henderson, 330 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying Morgan principles to Rehabilitation Act claims)