Roger Durand v. Fairview Health Services
902 F.3d 836
8th Cir.2018Background
- Linda and Roger Durand are deaf; their daughter Priscilla is hearing. Their son Shaun, who had Marfan syndrome, died at Fairview Ridges Hospital in May 2013.
- Shaun had authorized Priscilla (not his parents) to receive his medical information and named Priscilla as his health care agent; Linda and Roger were not designated decisionmakers.
- During Shaun’s terminal hospitalization, Fairview provided ASL interpreters for several scheduled conferences but had gaps in interpreter coverage during rounds and urgent interactions; an on-site interpreter arrived late to a May 8 care conference.
- Fairview provided a TTY on request the night Shaun’s condition worsened; Linda declined staff assistance setting it up and was unable to use it successfully; attempts to reach Roger at work failed for reasons outside Fairview’s control.
- Linda and Roger sued under Title III of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act for failure to provide meaningful access to auxiliary aids; Priscilla also asserted an independent associational-standing claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Fairview; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fairview failed to provide "meaningful access" to auxiliary aids (interpreters, TTY) in violation of ADA/RA/MHRA | Linda/Roger: Fairview’s interpreter delays, lack of interpreter during rounds, and ineffective TTY deprived them of crucial information about Shaun’s prognosis and decisions | Fairview: It provided interpreters for key conferences, offered TTY and assistance, and gave Linda/Roger access to the same information as hearing peers; urgent decisions prioritized authorized decisionmakers | Court: No genuine dispute that Fairview provided legally sufficient auxiliary aids and meaningful access; summary judgment for Fairview |
| Whether Priscilla has associational standing to bring an independent claim for harm she suffered interpreting for her parents | Priscilla: She was injured (could not tend to own needs) because she had to interpret, so she has associational standing under ADA/RA | Fairview: No underlying denial of services to Linda/Roger; Priscilla was not personally denied benefits because of association, so no standing | Court: Priscilla lacks associational standing under either Loeffler or McCullum frameworks; summary judgment for Fairview |
Key Cases Cited
- Barstad v. Murray Cty., 420 F.3d 880 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment standard review)
- Argenyi v. Creighton Univ., 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir.) (ADA/RA require necessary auxiliary aids; introduce "meaningful access" framework)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1985) (Section 504 requires meaningful access to benefits)
- Loye v. County of Dakota, 625 F.3d 494 (8th Cir.) (effective communication/meaningful access standard)
- Liese v. Indian River Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir.) (auxiliary aids must give patient equal opportunity to benefit from hospital treatment)
- Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (associational standing: non-disabled plaintiffs need only show independent injury causally related to denial of services to disabled associate)
- McCullum v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 768 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir.) (associational standing requires the non-disabled plaintiff personally be denied a benefit because of association)