Hejmej v. Peconic Bay Medical Center
2:17-cv-00782
| E.D.N.Y | Jul 6, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs Ryszard Hejmej, Bozena Hejmej, and Tibor Farkas (deaf patients) sued Peconic Bay Medical Center and Northwell Health alleging failures to provide effective communication and discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the ACA, and the New York State Human Rights Law; Title III ADA claims were dismissed on summary judgment.
- On September 29, 2022 the Court granted summary judgment to defendants on Title III claims and denied summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act, ACA (Section 1557), and NYSHRL claims due to genuine factual disputes about effective communication (particularly the absence of ASL interpretation).
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration raising three points: (1) the Court failed to independently apply the ACA’s “primary consideration” rule (Vega‑Ruiz), (2) the Court should decide whether deliberate indifference is required to recover nominal/compensatory damages, and (3) plaintiffs may prevail via a “treated differently” disparate‑treatment theory.
- The Court applied the strict reconsideration standard (moving party must show controlling decisions or data overlooked, intervening law, new evidence, or clear error) and considered each argument on the merits.
- The Court denied reconsideration: (1) applying the ACA primary‑consideration rule would not change the outcome because factual disputes remain about whether effective communication occurred; (2) the damages‑standard question was properly left for trial tools (motions in limine/jury instructions) because factual disputes persist; (3) the treated‑differently theory fails because plaintiffs raised key authority too late, offered no evidence of disparate treatment versus LEP patients, and the applicable regulation requires showing inability to effectively communicate without appropriate auxiliary aids.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration standard | Court overlooked controlling law/data and should revisit summary judgment rulings | Reconsideration inappropriate absent overlooked controlling authority, new evidence, or clear error | Denied — plaintiffs did not meet strict Shrader standard |
| ACA “primary consideration” rule | Court must independently apply Vega‑Ruiz and award partial summary judgment for plaintiffs | Even if plaintiffs’ choice (ASL) wasn’t honored, defendants can show another equally effective means; factual disputes remain | Denied — applying the rule would not resolve factual disputes; issue can be litigated pre‑trial or at trial |
| Damages standard (deliberate indifference) | Court should decide whether deliberate indifference is required for nominal/compensatory damages under RA/ACA/NYSHRL | Issue is factual; cannot be resolved at summary judgment due to genuine disputes | Denied — left for motions in limine or jury instructions because factual disputes persist |
| “Treated differently” (disparate treatment) theory | Plaintiffs can win by showing they were treated differently than other patients (e.g., LEP or English speakers) | Plaintiffs raised this theory and key authority too late and provided no evidence of differential treatment; legal inquiry focuses on whether effective communication was achieved | Denied — plaintiffs’ late citation of Davis and lack of evidence; substantive law requires showing inability to effectively communicate without appropriate aids |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for motions for reconsideration)
- Vega‑Ruiz v. Northwell Health, 992 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2021) (ACA “primary consideration” rule for communication aids)
- Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing theories of discrimination liability)
- Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (grounds justifying reconsideration)
- Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court discretion on reconsideration)
- Intelligent Digital Sys., LLC v. Beazley Ins. Co., 962 F. Supp. 2d 451 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (limitations on presenting new theories on reconsideration)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Zelik, 439 F. Supp. 3d 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (reconsideration practice and finality of decisions)