Perez v. Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, Ltd.
624 F. App'x 180
5th Cir.2015Background
- Rolando and Miriam Perez, both primarily ASL users (Mrs. Perez completely deaf), sought care at Doctors Hospital at Renaissance (DHR) for their infant daughter’s cancer treatments beginning in 2011 and again after a 2014 recurrence.
- The Perezes allege repeated failures by DHR to provide timely or effective auxiliary communication (in-person interpreters and functioning video remote interpreting (VRI) machines) from 2011–2012 and again after 2014; some instances included long waits or no interpreter and VRI equipment problems or staff unfamiliarity.
- DHR acknowledged gaps: an ADA compliance policy needing revision and a lack of training for staff on serving the hearing impaired.
- Plaintiffs sued in March 2013 under Title III of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Resources Code; the district court granted summary judgment to DHR on all claims.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, reversed the district court, and remanded, finding genuine disputes of material fact on standing for injunctive ADA relief and on intentional discrimination under the RA and Chapter 121.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA standing for injunctive relief — risk of future harm | Perezes: recent, repeated communication failures and policy/training gaps show real & immediate threat of repeated injury | DHR: most visits occurred without incident; asserted VRI problems were minor and not refusals; no substantial risk of future harm | Reversed: genuine dispute exists about real/immediate future harm; standing not resolved on summary judgment |
| RA — requirement of intent for damages | Perezes: evidence of repeated failures, refusals, ineffective VRI and policy/training lapses supports inference of intentional discrimination | DHR: no evidence of intentional discrimination; hospital attempted to provide effective communication | Reversed: sufficient evidence to create genuine factual dispute whether DHR intentionally discriminated; intent for jury to decide |
| Texas Chapter 121 — analogous to RA; intent question | Perezes: same evidence supports state-law claim of intentional discrimination | DHR: argued steps taken show lack of intent | Reversed: factual dispute on intentional discrimination warrants remand |
| Declaratory relief | Perezes: requested declaratory relief and risk of future harm supports it | DHR: declaratory relief unavailable absent risk of future harm; argued plaintiffs lack standing | Left to district court on remand to consider in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellard v. Gautreaux, 675 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Plumley v. Landmark Chevrolet, Inc., 122 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1997) (remedies available under Title III of the ADA)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (standing and requirement of real and immediate threat for equitable relief)
- Delano-Pyle v. Victoria County, 302 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2002) (intentional discrimination under the RA can be inferred from failures to provide effective communication)
- Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 759 F.3d 514 (5th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment evidence and inference standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (nonmovant’s evidence must be believed and inferences drawn in their favor)