Hejmej v. Peconic Bay Medical Center
2:17-cv-00782
| E.D.N.Y | Sep 29, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs Ryszard and Bozena Hejmej and Tibor Farkas (all deaf) sued Peconic Bay Medical Center and Northwell Health alleging failure to provide reasonable disability accommodations during hospital visits (claims under the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the ACA, ADA, and NYSHRL).
- Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; Magistrate Judge Locke issued an R&R recommending defendants’ motion be granted, plaintiffs’ motion denied, ADA claims dismissed with prejudice, and RA/ACA claims dismissed (with NYSHRL claims to be dismissed without prejudice).
- Plaintiffs objected; the district court conducted de novo review and adopted the R&R in part but disagreed that nominal damages for RA/ACA were unavailable post-Cummings, allowing plaintiffs to seek nominal damages on those claims.
- On the merits the court found genuine disputes of material fact about whether plaintiffs could effectively communicate with hospital staff without ASL interpretation (issues included limited English proficiency, reliance on writing/lip-reading, and reported VRI malfunctions).
- As a result the court denied both parties’ summary judgment motions on the RA, ACA, and NYSHRL claims; ADA claims remain dismissed with prejudice. The court did not resolve at summary judgment the question whether a deliberate-indifference standard governs certain damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of nominal damages under the Rehabilitation Act and Section 1557 (post-Cummings) | Plaintiffs: Cummings does not bar nominal damages; they may recover nominal damages for RA/ACA violations | Defendants: Cummings limits available remedies and precludes certain damages under RA/ACA | Court: Plaintiffs may seek nominal damages for RA and ACA claims (adopting reasoning in Fantasia) |
| Whether summary judgment is warranted on RA/ACA based on effective communication | Plaintiffs: Lack of ASL interpreters, limited English, VRI malfunctions and confusion show ineffective communication and denial of equal opportunity | Defendants: Plaintiffs communicated via written notes, lip-reading, and VRI; therefore communication was effective | Court: Genuine factual disputes about effectiveness of communication preclude summary judgment for either side |
| ADA claim viability | Plaintiffs: ADA claim asserted (as patients and companions) | Defendants: ADA claim not viable as pleaded | Court: ADA claims dismissed with prejudice (no objection to R&R on this point) |
| NYSHRL claims and remedies | Plaintiffs: NYSHRL claims are coextensive with RA and allow compensatory relief | Defendants: Move for summary judgment on state claims | Court: Summary judgment denied on NYSHRL claims; claims survive (compensatory damages under NYSHRL remain available) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 142 S. Ct. 1562 (U.S. 2022) (Supreme Court decision affecting available remedies in disability-service claims)
- Biondo v. Kaledia Health, 935 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2019) (Rehabilitation Act requires equal opportunity to benefit from medical services; governs hospital auxiliary-aid analysis)
- Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2009) (NYSHRL claims are construed coextensively with federal disability-law claims)
- Liese v. Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir. 2012) (auxiliary-aid effectiveness depends on nature and complexity of treatment)
- Silva v. Baptist Health S. Fla., Inc., 856 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2017) (evidence that staff ascertained basic symptoms is insufficient to prove equal access as a matter of law)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)