charles williams v. the cleveland clinic foundation
Post on 21-Feb-2016
4.167 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
New Case Electronically Filed:
November 3, 2015 09:26
By: SUBODH CHANDRA 0069233
Confirmation Nbr. 585554
CHARLES WILLIAMS CV 15 853657
vrs.
THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION
Judge:
STEVEN E. GALL
Pages Filed: 45
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26/ / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554/CLSDH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Case:
3907 Northampton Road
Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44121Judge:
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CLEVELAND CLINIC
FOUNDATION, d.b.a. The Cleveland
Clinic Health System
C/O CT Corporation System
1300 East 9th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Defendant.
Complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
Rehabilitation Act, with Jury Demand
Nature of the Action
1. This is a civil-rights action brought for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff Charles Williams is
completely deaf, and he relies on the Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation d.b.a. the
Cleveland Clinic Health System for medical treatment and care. Because he is completely
deaf, Mr. Williams receives a lower tier of medical care from the Clinic. Despite its status
as a major health-care system—and numerous requests from Mr. Williams—the Clinic
has repeatedly failed to provide him with legally required American Sign Language
interpretation services. By not providing these services, the Clinic exposed and continues
Page 1 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
to expose Mr. Williams to the fear and anxiety of facing a disparate risk of medical
mistreatment.
2. Mr. Williams brings this action to compel the Cleveland Clinic to cease its
unlawful discriminatory practices by implementing policies and procedures that will
ensure him effective communication, full and equal enjoyment of the Clinic’s medical
services, and a meaningful opportunity to participate in and benefit from those services.
Parties
3. Plaintiff Charles (or Chuck) Williams has been and is a patient of the Cleveland
Clinic Health System. He resides in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
4. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation—d.b.a. Cleveland Clinic Health System—is an
Ohio nonprofit corporation that provides medical and hospital care primarily in
northeast Ohio.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Under R.C. 2305.01, the Court has jurisdiction over this civil action because the
amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.
6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant as it resides and transacts
business in Cuyahoga County.
7. Under Civ.R. 3(B), venue is proper in this Court because all parties reside or are
located in Cuyahoga County, and the events at issue took place in this county.
Page 2 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Factual Background
Mr. Williams overcomes complete deafness to great achievement in his
career and advocacy work.
8. Charles Williams is completely deaf.
9. Mr. Williams has been deaf since the late 1960s. He became hard of hearing
around 1943, when he was 12 years old. By 1969, audiologists confirmed that
Mr. Williams could not longer understand speech.
10. Mr. Williams communicates primarily in American Sign Language (ASL), which
is different from signed English. ASL is a separate language with its own syntax, sentence
structure, and grammatical system. Mr. Williams has expressed to Cleveland Clinic
employees and representatives many times that ASL is his preferred and most effective
means of communication.
11. Because of the educational barriers that deaf people confronted when he was
younger, Mr. Williams could not pursue a legal career as he had aspired to do.
12. For 35 years, Mr. Williams worked for the Cuyahoga County Engineer’s Office.
13. Patricia Cangelosi-Williams, Mr. Williams’s wife, works as a certified professional
ASL interpreter.
14. Though Ms. Cangelosi-Williams works as an interpreter, Cleveland Clinic cannot
legally require her to interpret at her husband’s medical appointments.1 Nor would it be
medically advisable to have her interpret. Family members are too personally and
emotionally attached to a patient to act impartially, which is a necessity for qualified ASL
interpreters in medical settings.
1 See 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(2) (“A public accommodation shall not require an individual with a
disability to bring another individual to interpret for him or her.”); see also 28 C.F.R. §
36.303(c)(3)-(4) (generally barring public accommodations from relying on someone who
accompanied the individual with a disability to interpret).
Page 3 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
15. Mr. Williams has advocated for the black, deaf community. He co-founded the
National Black Deaf Advocates, a non-profit advocacy organization, and remains active
in the organization.
16. In 1977, Mr. Williams served as an Ohio delegate to the White House Conference
on Handicapped Individuals.
17. When Mr. Williams sat on a jury in 1987, he became the first deafjuror in Ohio
history. He also has served as the foreman of a jury.
18. Mr. Williams has served as the Vice President of the National Association of Deaf
Senior Citizens.
19. Mr. Williams chaired and led the development of the Cuyahoga County
Community Mental Health Board’s advisory committee regarding deaf persons.
20. In 2008, Gallaudet University awarded Mr. Williams an honorary doctorate.
Before then, he had served 13 years as a member of the Gallaudet University Board of
Trustees. Gallaudet is the world leader in higher liberal education and career
development for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Gallaudet conducts research on the
history, language, culture, and other topics related the deaf community.
21. Since retiring from the Cuyahoga County Engineer’s Office, Mr. Williams has
taught ASL at Baldwin Wallace University and Cleveland State University.
22. Mr. Williams chaired the grant-writing committee that later established Cleveland
State University’s interpreter-training program.
Page 4 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
The Cleveland Clinic establishes a pattern of failing to provide
ASL-interpretation services.
23. For decades, Mr. Williams has relied on the Cleveland Clinic as his primary
healthcare provider. Throughout this time, Mr. Williams’s physicians have known that he
is completely deaf and requires ASL-interpretation services.
24. Since at least 2007, despite being long aware of Mr. Williams’s interpretation
needs, the Clinic has failed to have an ASL interpreter present for many of
Mr. Williams’s medical appointments.
25. In 2007, weeks before a sleep-study appointment, Charles Williams and his wife
personally met with a member of the scheduling department to confirm that the Clinic
would provide ASL-interpretation services for the appointment. This meeting occurred
on or about September 12, 2007.
26. On the day of the appointment, on or about October 1, 2007, Mr. Williams
arrived at the Clinic’s sleep center at the Beachwood Courtyard of Marriott, but no
interpreter ever showed up. Mr. Williams underwent the sleep-center test without the
ability to communicate effectively with the medical staff.
27. Lip reading—the ability to understand speech by watching the speaker’s lips—is a
highly speculative means of communication, even under ideal conditions. People can
visibly detect only a small fraction of spoken sounds, and many of those sounds appear
identical on a speaker’s lips.
28. After the appointment on or about October 1, 2007, Mr. Williams and his wife
followed up with the scheduling department about why no ASL interpreter attended the
appointment. A Clinic representative explained that because his patient records reflected
Page 5 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
his deafness, a report should have been generated at the Clinic’s Access to Care Center.
Upon receiving this report, the center should then have secured an ASL interpreter.
29. The Clinic’s patient-information system reflects that Mr. Williams’s preferred
language is American Sign Language. After-visit summaries produced by the Clinic show
“SIGN LANGUAGE” as his preferred language in the “Basic Information” section. And
Mr. Williams’s appointment schedules, also produced by the Clinic, list “Sign Language
Interpreter” for his scheduled appointment times.
30. On or about January 21, 2008, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams feared that her husband
was suffering a heart attack. Before leaving for the hospital, she quickly called the Clinic’s
emergency department to notify them that he would need an interpreter when they
arrived.
31. When Mr. Williams and his wife entered the Clinic a half-hour later, no
interpreter was present. Ms. Cangelosi-Williams persisted in her demand for an
interpreter and asked many times whether and when an interpreter would arrive—to no
avail. Hours after arriving at the Clinic, Mr. Williams still had no interpreter.
32. On or about March 12, 2008—two days before an appointment with Dr. Alan M.
Weiss of Internal Medicine on or about March 14, 2008—Mr. Williams called the
scheduling department and requested an ASL interpreter.
33. No interpreter showed up for the appointment on or about March 14, 2008.
Ms. Cangelosi-Williams later called the physician’s secretary to insist that the lack of an
interpreter be documented. The secretary assured her that it would be.
34. On or about March 30, 2009, Mr. Williams called the Clinic’s urgent-care call
center at 9:00 a.m. to schedule a same-day appointment at 3:15 p.m. The call transferred
to the scheduling department, then to Charles Imperatore of Sign Language Interpreters
Page 6 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
of Cleveland, Inc. (At the time, Cleveland Clinic contracted with Sign Language
Interpreters of Cleveland to provide ASL-interpretation services.) Imperatore said he
would try to have an interpreter at the appointment.
35. A half-hour before the appointment, Imperatore called Ms. Cangelosi-Williams
and told her that the interpreter for Mr. Williams’s appointment might not arrive on time
because the interpreter was at another appointment. He suggested that
Ms. Cangelosi-Williams contact another agency. She responded that it was not her
responsibility to do so and asked whether there was a back-up system. (There was not.)
Despite the agency’s uncertainty, the interpreter arrived on time.
Mr. Williams attempts to call the Cleveland Clinic’s attention to its
failure to provide ASL-interpretation services.
36. Frustrated with the lack of ASL-interpretation services, Mr. Williams, on or about
May 25, 2009, submitted a complaint under his name through the Clinic’s online system.
He detailed the absence of an interpreter at his wife’s March 10, 2009 appointment and
called attention to the Clinic’s pattern of not providing interpreters for his appointments.
In part, Mr. Williams reported that “[d]uring the past couple of years, [he] had to endure
serious appointments without an interpreter when one was promised.”
37. The next day, on or about May 26, 2009, the Clinic failed to provide requested
interpretation services for Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic’s
Anticoagulation Clinic.
38. Mr. Williams submitted another complaint electronically on or about June 15,
2009. He reported the lack of interpretation services for his appointment on or about
May 26, 2009. He stressed that “it is important for [him] to have open communication
with the nurses and staff people there.”
Page 7 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
39. In his complaint on or about June 15, 2009, Mr. Williams asked the Clinic to
ensure that he have an interpreter for his next appointment on June 23, 2009.
A Cleveland Clinic registered nurse called Mr. Williams to confirm that the Clinic
received his complaint and interpreter request for his upcoming appointment. The nurse
explained that she knew that an interpreter had been scheduled for Mr. Williams’s
previous appointment but did not know why one did not show up.
40. On or about July 20, 2009—little more than a month after Mr. Williams’s
June 15th complaint—no interpreter showed up for his appointment with Dr. Weiss.
On or about July 22, 2009, Mr. Williams and his wife reported this incident to the
Ombudsman Office.
41. Cleveland Clinic also failed to provide ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s appointments on or about September 10, 2009 and October 6, 2009—
despite an ASL interpreter being scheduled for each appointment.
42. On or about August 24, 2010, Mr. Williams missed a scheduled appointment. He
called Cleveland Clinic that day and rescheduled it for the next day, on or about
August 25, 2010. While doing so, he requested an interpreter. But no interpreter showed
up for the appointment.
43. Cleveland Clinic further failed to provide Mr. Williams an interpreter for a
follow-up appointment on or about August 26, 2010.
44. On or about July 3, 2012, Mr. Williams went to an appointment with Dr. Susan
Williams, his new primary-care physician. No ASL interpreter attended this appointment.
Page 8 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
The Cleveland Clinic again fails to secure an interpreter. Despite her
objections, Mr. Williams’s wife is forced to step in as her husband’s
interpreter.
45. More recently, on or about September 23, 2014, Mr. Williams and his wife went
to the Clinic for appointments with Dr. Saqer Alkharabsheh and Dr. Muhammad Ali
Syed. Though an ASL interpreter was requested and scheduled, one failed to show up.
46. After the appointments had begun, a registered nurse attempted once more to
secure an interpreter but did not succeed.
47. Dr. Alkharabsheh and Dr. Syed could not effectively communicate with
Mr. Williams without an ASL interpreter.
48. Being at the Clinic to support her husband, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams strongly
objected to serving as his interpreter. She informed the medical staff of the conflict
inherent to any family member serving as an interpreter for a loved one.
49. Left with no other option because the Clinic furnished no ASL-interpretation
services, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams interpreted the communications between her husband
and his doctors. The appointments lasted about two hours.
The Cleveland Clinic’s lack of ASL-interpretation service frustrates
Mr. Williams’s physician during an appointment.
50. Similarly, on or about October 9, 2014, the Clinic again failed to provide an
interpreter for a scheduled appointment.
51. The absence of ASL-interpretation services aggravated the physician for that
appointment, Dr. Syed. Remembering that no interpreter attended Mr. Williams’s
appointment on or about September 23, 2014 either, Dr. Syed called the scheduling
department and expressed his displeasure with the interpreter situation.
Page 9 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
52. Whenever the Clinic failed to furnish ASL-interpretation services, Mr. Williams’s
physicians could not communicate effectively with their patient. The resulting
communication barrier frustrated their ability to diagnose, treat, and advise their patient.
Mr. Williams’s health deteriorates.
53. On or about December 12, 2014, Mr. Williams was scheduled for an
appointment with Dr. Brian Hill, a physician in the Hematology and Oncology
Department. This appointment represented the first time that Mr. Williams had met with
the physician. Before the appointment, Mr. Williams wondered why he was meeting with
Dr. Hill.
54. Though an ASL interpreter attended this appointment with Dr. Hill, the
interpreter failed to accurately interpret the communication between Dr. Hill and
Mr. Williams. Dissatisfied with the gaps in communication, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams
re-interpreted much of what the doctor said for her husband.
55. During the appointment, Dr. Hill informed Mr. Williams—through his wife’s
interpretation—of a serious diagnosis.
56. Mr. Williams’s hospital visits generally concerned his diminishing health and the
actions he could take to improve his condition. The inherent seriousness of these visits
heightened the need for accurate, in-person interpretation to facilitate physician-patient
communication.
The Cleveland Clinic cannot provide an ASL interpreter when Mr. Williams
checks into the emergency room.
57. On or about January 21, 2015, Mr. Williams went alone to the emergency
department at the Clinic’s main campus. Despite the urgent need for communication
Page 10 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
during a medical emergency, the Clinic did not have an ASL interpreter available for
Mr. Williams.
58. The next day, on or about January 22, 2015, Mr. Williams met with Dr. Syed for
a follow-up appointment, and again, no interpreter was provided. The doctor apologized
for the lack of interpretation services.
59. After the appointment on or about January 22, 2015, a woman from Global
Language Solutions, Inc.—apparently a Cleveland Clinic contractor—called
Mr. Williams and apologized that no interpreter attended his appointment the day
before. Mr. Williams asked to arrange a meeting—with an ASL interpreter provided—for
the purpose of resolving his interpreter-scheduling issues. She assured him that she would
call about setting up the meeting. No one has since called him back about the meeting.
The Cleveland Clinic attempts to use a faulty video-remote-interpretation
system, then replaces it with an unqualified interpreter.
60. Mr. Williams had appointments scheduled with Dr. Hill and Dr. Syed on or
about April 16, 2015. Mr. Williams and his wife attended these appointments together.
61. An ASL interpreter interpreted the day’s first appointment with Dr. Hill. But the
interpreter did not accompany Mr. Williams and his wife to the second appointment with
Dr. Syed.
62. Instead of providing an in-person interpreter, the Clinic attempted to use video
remote interpretation (VRI) for the appointment with Dr. Syed. VRI involves the use of a
remotely located interpreter interpreting through a video screen.
63. The VRI equipment used for the appointment failed to interpret effectively
because the video screen was small and repeatedly froze while the interpreter was signing.
Page 11 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
64. Adding to the technical flaws, VRI generally cannot account for differences in
local dialects of ASL—making it less effective than a qualified interpreter.
65. The interpreter could not see Mr. Williams and his wife at the same time to
communicate with them together.
66. Mr. Williams, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams, Dr. Syed, and the VRI interpreter grew
frustrated with the deficient VRI technology. The doctor called for an in-person
interpreter, who arrived shortly after the doctor’s call.
67. Interpretation for the appointment switched from VRI to the newly arrived
interpreter.
68. The new in-person interpreter was not effective.
69. The new interpreter dressed inappropriately for interpreting ASL. To reduce
eyestrain and fatigue, professional interpreters wear plain clothing to provide a clear
contrast. Instead, the new interpreter wore a checkered plaid shirt.
70. The interpreter’s appearance strained Mr. Williams’s ability to communicate and
violated the Code of Professional Conduct jointly developed by the National Association
of the Deaf and the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. This code requires
interpreters to “present themselves in an unobtrusive manner and exercise care in choice
of attire.”2
71. The interpreter skewed the meaning of what Dr. Syed said. For example, when
the doctor spoke the phrase “bowel movements”, the interpreter displayed the sign for
“toilet.”
2 Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct para. 3.5 (2005),
available at http://www.rid.org/ethics/code-of-professional-conduct/.
Page 12 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
72. The interpreter struggled with the syntax of ASL, which differs from that of
English. While Mr. Williams was on the exam table, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams had to assist
the interpreter by suggesting how interpret certain words or phrases.
73. During other appointments, interpreters at the Cleveland Clinic have skewed
what Mr. Williams’s doctors have said.
74. During his hospital visits, discussions about Mr. Williams’s medical care included
important technical terms and industry jargon.
75. Vague or inaccurate interpreting creates a higher risk that patients will
misunderstand their own diagnoses, prognoses, or proper courses of action. It also
generates confusion, stress, and anxiety during already highly stressful and sensitive
situations.
76. Vague or inaccurate interpreting further creates a risk that medical staff will
misunderstand a patient’s symptoms, sentiments, and attitudes towards certain courses of
treatment, which can lead to doctors offering misdiagnoses and improper courses of
action.
77. Because of the risks created by vague or inaccurate interpreting,
Ms. Cangelosi-Williams during several appointments has had to take over as the
interpreter for her husband when a Clinic-provided interpreter failed to interpret
accurately.
Page 13 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Despite Mr. Williams’s long-running interpretation issues, he encounters
more unqualified interpreters at the Cleveland Clinic.
78. On or about April 23, 2015, Mr. Williams had a physical-therapy appointment.
The scheduled interpreter missed most of the appointment, arriving in time to interpret
only for the last five minutes. She also appeared to be very inexperienced. She did not
signal spaces or use classifier handshapes correctly. (Classifer handshapes typically
indicate a particular class of things, shapes, or sizes.)
79. A week later, on or about April 30, 2015, a different interpreter arrived
15 minutes late for another of Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointments. When
asked why he arrived 15 minutes late, the interpreter explained that he struggled to find
the appointment’s location.
80. On several occasions, ASL interpreters have arrived late for Mr. Williams’s
appointments at the Cleveland Clinic Anticoagulation Clinic.
81. On information and belief, interpreters who arrive late to patients’ appointments
still receive full payment from Cleveland Clinic as if they have arrived on time.
82. On or about October 15, 2015, the Clinic provided another unqualified
interpreter for Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Syed. The interpreter could not
accurately interpret questions that Dr. Syed asked Mr. Williams. Because of the
inaccuracy, some of Mr. Williams’s answers did not match the question asked. For
example, an open-ended question from Dr. Syed produced a “yes” or “no” response from
Mr. Williams. Ms. Cangelosi-Williams at times had to correct Mr. Williams’s answer
when she knew that he had misunderstood the doctor’s original question.
83. The interpreter for the appointment on or about October 15, 2015 also acted
unprofessionally by sharing with Ms. Cangelosi-Williams details about a different
Page 14 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
appointment.3 She expressed that he should treat information about other patients’
appointments as confidential, and that he should not similarly share details from her
husband’s appointment with others.
While Mr. Williams struggles to secure an interpreter as his health erodes,
the Cleveland Clinic’s revenues and assets—and available resources to
provide proper ASL-interpretation services—grow.
84. Over the last decade, the Cleveland Clinic has experienced dramatic growth and
expansion.
85. As of the end of 2014, the Clinic’s footprint included 9 regional hospitals, more
than 90 outpatient-care locations in northern Ohio, and medical centers in Florida,
Nevada, Canada, and Abu Dhabi. The Clinic recently announced its expansion to
London as well.
86. According to its 2014 audited financial statements, Cleveland Clinic’s net
patient-service revenue that year totaled over $6.43 billion. And the Clinic’s total
revenues exceeded expenses by more than $703 million. The year before, in 2013,
Cleveland Clinic’s total revenues exceeded expenses by more than $900 million.
87. By comparison, Cleveland Clinic’s 2006 audited financial statements reflect net
patient-service revenue of $3.97 billion. The excess of revenues over expenses equaled
$519 million.
88. As of the end of 2014, the Clinic had amassed $12.27 billion in total assets, nearly
doubling its $6.20 billion in total assets at the end of 2006.
89. In 2014, the Clinic launched a $2 billion philanthropic campaign.
3 Id. at para 1.0.
Page 15 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
90. Mr. Williams has sought, and continues to seek, medical treatment from the
Cleveland Clinic related to many diagnoses and health concerns—some of them very
serious in nature.
91. As of this Complaint’s filing, Mr. Williams is eighty-four years old.
92. Mr. Williams has been denied the opportunity to participate in his medical
treatment by asking questions of his medical providers and having them explain his
testing, diagnoses, prognoses, discharge instructions, and follow-up treatment in a manner
that he could understand.
93. As a health-care provider, the Cleveland Clinic knew or should have known of its
obligation to provide interpretation services to individuals who are deaf, and that its
failure to furnish these services would cause such an individual to experience fear,
anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress.
94. The Cleveland Clinic intentionally discriminated against Mr. Williams and acted
with deliberate indifference to his communication needs, causing him to endure fear,
humiliation, anxiety, and emotional distress.
Legal Claims
Claim 1
Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12182.
95. Plaintiff Charles Williams incorporates all previous allegations.
96. As a man who is completely deaf, Mr. Williams has a disability as defined by the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Page 16 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
97. Defendant Cleveland Clinic is a place of public accommodation covered by
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.4
98. The Clinic repeatedly received notice that Mr. Williams is deaf.
99. The Clinic discriminated against Mr. Williams by refusing him full and equal
enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
because he is deaf. He has been denied the same opportunities that are readily available
to hearing persons to get information, ask questions, and make informed treatment
decisions.
100. Mr. Williams needed a qualified ASL interpreter to ensure that the Clinic did not
deny him services or otherwise treat him differently than other individuals because of his
disability.
101. The Clinic had (and has) an obligation to furnish auxiliary aids and services where
necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities and their
companions.5
102. On at least four of Mr. Williams’s recent Cleveland Clinic visits, the Clinic failed
to provide him with an ASL interpreter or any other auxiliary aid or service to ensure
effective communication with him and his wife. These visits occurred on or about:
a. September 23, 2014;
b. October 9, 2014;
c. January 21, 2015; and
d. January 22, 2015.
4 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.
5 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1).
Page 17 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
103. On or about April 23, 2015 and April 30, 2015, interpreters arrived late for
Mr. Williams’s appointments. Because the interpreters arrived late, the Cleveland Clinic
failed to provide auxiliary aids or services necessary to ensure effective communication
during these appointments.
104. On at least three of Mr. Williams’s recent Cleveland Clinic visits, the ASL
interpreter did not qualify as auxiliary aids or services necessary to ensure effective
communication. These visits occurred on or about:
a. April 16, 2015;
b. April 23, 2015; and
c. October 15, 2015.
105. The VRI technology initially used during Mr. Williams’s appointment on or
about April 16, 2015 did not meet minimum regulatory standards because it produced
lags and irregular pauses in communication.6 The video’s choppiness—along with the
screen’s small size—made effective communication impossible.
106. With its resources, the Clinic can provide patients (and companions) who are deaf
or have hearing loss with qualified in-person interpreters without taking on an undue
burden.
107. Mr. Williams continues to receive medical care from the Clinic, and he intends to
remain a patient of the Clinic. Failing to provide him an interpreter at future
appointments will create a likelihood that he will suffer a substantial and irreparable
injury.
108. Based on the Clinic’s record of repeatedly denying Mr. Williams interpretation
services that would ensure effective communication, it is reasonably foreseeable that the
6 See 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(f).
Page 18 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Clinic will continue to not provide an ASL interpreter for Mr. Williams’s future
appointments.
Claim 2
Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
29 U.S.C. § 794.
109. Plaintiff Charles Williams incorporates all previous allegations.
110. Defendant Cleveland Clinic is principally engaged in the business of providing
health care.
111. At all relevant times, the Clinic has received federal financial assistance and is thus
subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
112. As a man who is completely deaf, Charles Williams has a disability as defined by
the Rehabilitation Act.
113. Disability aside, Mr. Williams was (and is) otherwise qualified to receive health
care services from the Clinic.
114. Because of Mr. Williams’s disability, the Clinic denied him benefits of its health
care services. The services the Clinic provided to Mr. Williams were not as effective as the
services it provides to hearing individuals.
115. The Clinic did not provide Mr. Williams with the auxiliary aids necessary to
afford him an equal opportunity to benefit from the hospital’s health-care services.
116. The Clinic acted with deliberate indifference in denying Mr. Williams the full
benefit of its services.
117. As a direct and proximate result of the Cleveland Clinic’s unlawful conduct,
Mr. Williams has suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic
damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering,
Page 19 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
emotional distress, mental anguish, and expenses incurred for his medical care and
attention.
Prayer for Relief
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief from the
Court.
a. Declare that Defendant’s acts and conduct constitute violations of federal
law;
b. Order Defendant to develop, implement, and comply with a policy
prohibiting future failures to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and
services—including qualified ASL interpreters—free of charge to
individuals who are deaf or have hearing loss, where necessary to ensure
effective communication;
c. Order Defendant to develop, implement, and comply with a policy
requiring that when individuals who are deaf or have hearing loss request
an on-site interpreter, one will be provided as soon as practicable in all
services offered by Defendant;
d. Order Defendant to contractually require all ASL interpreters at its
facilities to adhere to the Code of Professional Conduct jointly developed
by the National Association of the Deaf and the Registry of Interpreters
for the Deaf, Inc.;
e. Order Defendant to ensure that at least one qualified ASL interpreter is
available at all times for a patient who is deaf or has hearing loss and
whose primary means of communication is ASL;
f. Order Defendant to continually evaluate and review the performance of
all ASL interpreters at its facilities to ensure that all interpreters used by
Defendant are qualified;
g. Order Defendant to develop, implement and comply with a policy to
ensure that Defendant will notify individuals who are deaf or have hearing
loss of their right to effective communication, including conspicuously
posting and maintaining the following notice in its hospital lobbies and
wherever a Patient’s Bill of Rights is required by law to be posted;
“In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
qualified interpreters and other auxiliary aids and services are
available free of charge to people who are deaf or have
hearing loss.”
Page 20 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
h. Order Defendant with regard to video remote interpreting (VRI):
i. to develop, implement, and comply with a policy ensuring that
deaf or hard-of-hearing patients are able to communicate
through an in-person interpreter whenever possible;
ii. to develop, implement and comply with a policy to ensure that
VRI, when used, has a high-speed Internet connection; a video
screen with appropriate size, position, capture angle, focus, and
proximity to the patient; and appropriate audio quality. The
policy should require that the VRI equipment be portable so it
can be moved to a patient’s location, preferably in a private room
to minimize distractions and maintain confidentiality;
iii. to regularly train its employees, staff, and other agents about
Defendant’s VRI policies, including training on how to set up
VRI systems and how to get technical assistance when a system
malfunctions;
i. Order Defendant to create and maintain a log of each request for an
auxiliary aid or service;
j. Order Defendant to provide annual Americans with Disabilities Act
training to its employees and other staff addressing:
i. the degrees of hearing impairment;
ii. the required charting procedures governing requests for auxiliary
aids and services;
iii. types of auxiliary aids and services available at Cleveland Clinic;
iv. proper use and role of qualified interpreters; and
v. procedures for scheduling a qualified ASL interpreter as quickly
as practicable when necessary;
k. Enter judgment in Mr. Williams’s favor for all claims for relief;
l. Award Mr. Williams full compensatory damages, economic and
non-economic, including but not limited to damages for pain and
suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, and
inconvenience that Mr. Williams has suffered and is reasonably certain to
suffer in the future;
m. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
Page 21 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
n. Award Mr. Williams his reasonable attorneys’ fees (including expert fees)
and all other costs of this suit;
o. Award all other relief in law or equity to which Mr. Williams is entitled
and that the Court deems equitable, just, or proper.
Jury Demand
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues within this Complaint.
Dated: November 3, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM LLC
/s/ Subodh Chandra_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Subodh Chandra (0069233)
Ashlie Case Sletvold (0079477)
Patrick Haney (0092333)
1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113.1326
216.578.1700 Phone
216.578.1800 Fax
Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com
Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com
Patrick.Haney@ChandraLaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams
Page 22 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Request for Service
To the Clerk:
Please issue the Summons and Complaint and serve the Complaint and accompanying
discovery requests by certified mail to Defendant listed in the Complaint’s caption at the
addresses listed above, making return according to law.
/s/ Subodh Chandra
One of the attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams
Page 23 of 23
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
Charles Williams, Case:
Plaintiff, Judge:
vs.
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Williams’s First Requests for Admission under Ohio Civ.R. 36
Under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 36, Plaintiff Charles Williams respectfully requests
that Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation respond to Plaintiff s First Set of Requests for
Admission within 28 days of service. These requests are to be answered completely and fully, in
writing, and under oath.
If timely responses are not received, the requests will be admitted consistent
with Civ.R. 36.
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Definitions. In answering each request, use the following definitions:
1. The words “you,” “your,” “Cleveland Clinic Health System,” “Cleveland Clinic,”
and “Clinic” refer to Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the party responding to these
requests, and/or its agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and/or assigns.
2. “And” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as
necessary to bring within the scope of the request all responses that might otherwise be construed
to be outside its scope.
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
3. “Any” includes the word “all,” and “all” includes the word “any.”
4. “Regarding” and its cognates mean relating, concerning, containing, consisting of,
referring to, reflecting, supporting, demonstrating, showing, identifying, mentioning,
contradicting, prepared in connection with, used in preparation for, pertaining to, having any
relationship to, evidencing, constituting evidence of, or being in any way legally, logically, or
factually connected with the matter discussed, in whole or in part.
5. “ASL” means American Sign Language.
B. These requests for admission shall be deemed continuing in nature and are to be
supplemented as additional information pertinent to any request is obtained, including but not
limited to additional information that adds to a previous response, corrects a previous response,
or clarifies a previous response.
C. If objection is made, the reasons for your objection shall be stated. The answer shall
specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why you cannot
truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the
requested admission, and when good faith requires that you qualify your answer,
or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, you shall
specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. You may not give
lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless you state that
you have made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by you
is insufficient to enable you to admit or deny. If you consider that a matter of which an admission
has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial, you may not, on that ground alone, object
to the request; you may, subject to the provisions of Civ.R. 37(C), deny the matter or set forth
reasons why you cannot admit or deny it.
Page 2 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
1. Admit that Plaintiff Charles Williams has been a patient at Cleveland Clinic since 2005.
RESPONSE:
2. Admit that since 2005, Cleveland Clinic’s patient-information system has reflected that
Mr. Williams preferred language is American Sign Language (ASL).
RESPONSE:
3. Admit that since 2005, Cleveland Clinic’s patient-information system has reflected that
Mr. Williams is deaf and requires interpretation services for his appointments at the Clinic.
RESPONSE:
4. Admit that Mr. Williams and his wife, Patricia Cangelosi-Williams, met with Malea (or
Malia) of the Clinic’s scheduling department on or about September 12, 2007 about having
an ASL interpreter for Mr. Williams’s upcoming appointment at a Clinic sleep center on or
about October 1, 2007.
RESPONSE:
5. Admit that no ASL interpreter showed up for Mr. Williams’s sleep-center appointment on or
about October 1, 2007.
RESPONSE:
6. Admit that Mr. Williams and his wife reported to Malea of the Clinic’s scheduling
department in October 2007 that no ASL interpreter attended his sleep-center appointment
on or about October 1, 2007.
RESPONSE:
7. Admit that Ms. Cangelosi-Williams called the Clinic’s emergency department before bringing
her husband to the Clinic on or about January 21, 2008.
RESPONSE:
8. Admit that no ASL interpreter showed up to interpret for Mr. Williams when his wife
brought him to the Clinic’s emergency department on or about January 21, 2008.
RESPONSE:
Page 3 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
9. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic with Dr. Alan Weiss on or about March 14, 2008.
RESPONSE:
10. Admit that Cleveland Clinic received an online complaint from Mr. Williams on or about
May 25, 2009 concerning the lack of ASL-interpretation services at his appointments.
RESPONSE:
11. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic Anticoagulation on or about May 26,
2009.
RESPONSE:
12. Admit that Cleveland Clinic received a complaint from Mr. Williams on or about June 15,
2009 that reported the lack of interpretation services at his appointment on or about May 26,
2009.
RESPONSE:
13. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Weiss at the Clinic on or about July 20, 2009.
RESPONSE:
14. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic on or about September 10, 2009.
RESPONSE:
15. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic on or about October 6, 2009.
RESPONSE:
16. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic on or about August 25, 2010.
RESPONSE:
17. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic on or about August 26, 2010, the day after his
appointment on or about August 25, 2010.
RESPONSE:
Page 4 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
18. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Susan Williams at the Clinic on or about July 3, 2012.
RESPONSE:
19. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other that Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointments at the Clinic on or about September 23, 2014.
RESPONSE:
20. Admit that having a patient’s family member interpret a patient-physician medical discussion
creates a conflict for the family member between the personal connection to the patient and
the need for impartial accurate interpreting.
RESPONSE:
21. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other that Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Muhammad Ali Syed at the Clinic on or about
October 9, 2014.
RESPONSE:
22. Admit that on or about October 9, 2014, Dr. Syed called the Cleveland Clinic’s scheduling
department about providing ASL interpreters for Mr. Williams.
RESPONSE:
23. Admit that Cleveland Clinic had no ASL interpreter available for Mr. Williams on or about
January 21, 2015 when he checked into the Clinic’s emergency department.
RESPONSE:
24. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other that Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for
Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Syed on or about January 22, 2015.
RESPONSE:
25. Admit that Cleveland Clinic contracts with Global Language Solutions, Inc. for
ASL-interpretation services.
RESPONSE:
26. Admit that Mr. Williams met with Dr. Brian Hill for the first time on or about December 12,
2014.
RESPONSE:
Page 5 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
27. Admit that Cleveland Clinic attempted to use video remote interpretation (VRI) for
Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Syed on or about April 16, 2015.
RESPONSE:
28. Admit that after attempting to use VRI, Dr. Syed called for an in-person ASL interpreter for
his appointment with Mr. Williams on or about April 16, 2015.
RESPONSE:
29. Admit that the in-person ASL interpreter for Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Syed on
or about April 16, 2015 wore a checkered plaid shirt to the appointment.
RESPONSE:
30. Admit that the ASL interpreter scheduled for Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointment
on or about April 23, 2015 arrived late to the appointment.
RESPONSE:
31. Admit that Cleveland Clinic paid the interpreter the same amount for Mr. Williams’s
physical-therapy appointment on or about April 23, 2015 as if the interpreter had arrived
on time.
RESPONSE:
32. Admit that the ASL interpreter scheduled for Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointment
on or about April 30, 2015 arrived late to the appointment.
RESPONSE:
33. Admit that Cleveland Clinic paid the interpreter the same amount for Mr. Williams’s
physical-therapy appointment on or about April 30, 2015as if the interpreter had arrived
on time.
RESPONSE:
34. Admit that ASL interpreters who arrive late to patients’ appointments at Cleveland Clinic
receive full payment from the Clinic as if they have arrived on time.
RESPONSE:
35. Admit that Clinic physicians consider patient feedback when making medical decisions.
RESPONSE:
Page 6 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
36. Admit that vague or inaccurate interpreting—regardless of the language—creates a higher
risk that patients will not understand their own medical situations.
RESPONSE:
37. Admit that vague or inaccurate interpreting—regardless of the language—negatively impacts
a physician’s ability to assess patients’ medical conditions and advise them accordingly.
RESPONSE:
38. Admit that, from 2007 to the present, Cleveland Clinic has contracted with independent
contractors to provide ASL-interpretation services.
RESPONSE:
39. Admit that Cleveland Clinic does not have a policy or practice of evaluating individual
interpreters’ credentials before they provide ASL-interpretation services at the Clinic.
RESPONSE:
40. Admit that Cleveland Clinic does not have a policy or practice of evaluating the performance
of individual interpreters who provide ASL-interpretation services at the Clinic.
RESPONSE:
Respectfully submitted,
THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM LLC
/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Subodh Chandra (0069233)
Ashlie Case Sletvold (0079477)
Patrick Haney (0092333)
1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113.1326
216.578.1700 Phone
216.578.1800 Fax
Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com
Ashlie .Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com
Patrick.Haney@ChandraLaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams
Page 7 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Certificate of Service
A copy of the above document was served by the Clerk with the initial complaint on Defendant.
/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One of the attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams
Page 8 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
Charles Williams, Case:
Plaintiff, Judge:
vs.
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Defendant.
Plaintiff Williams’s First Requests for Production of Documents
under Ohio Civ.R. 34
Under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Plaintiff Charles Williams requests that
Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation respond to Plaintiff s First Request for Production of
Documents within 28 days of service.
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Definitions. In answering each request, use the following definitions:
1. The words “Defendant,” “you,” “your,” “Cleveland Clinic Health System,”
“Cleveland Clinic,” and “Clinic” refer to Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the party
responding to these requests, and its agents, employees, representatives, and/or assigns.
2. The terms “document,” “documents,” “record,” or “records” mean the original
and a copy, regardless of origin or location, of any writing or records of any type or description,
whether official or unofficial, including, but not limited to, the original and any copy of any book,
pamphlet, periodical, letter, memorandum, telegram, report, record, study, inter- or intra-office
communication, handwritten or other note, working paper, publication, permit, ledger and/or
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
journal, whether general or special, chart, paper, graph, survey, index tape, disk, data sheet, or
data-processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, filed, or graphic matter,
however produced or reproduced, to which Defendant had access or now has access.
“Document” or “documents” also includes any magnetically, mechanically, and/or electronically
stored, maintained, and/or recorded data, whether the data consists of words, symbols, numbers,
graphs, or other matters, including but not limited to email (including attachments to
email), social-media communications, and text messages.
3. “And” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as
necessary to bring within the scope of the request all responses that might otherwise be construed
to be outside its scope.
4. “Any” includes the word “all,” and “all” includes the word “any.”
5. “Relate to” and “relating to” mean regarding, concerning, containing, consisting
of, referring to, reflecting, supporting, demonstrating, showing, identifying, mentioning,
contradicting, prepared in connection with, used in preparation for, pertaining to, having any
relationship to, evidencing, constituting evidence of, or being in any way legally, logically, or
factually connected with the matter discussed.
6. “ASL” means American Sign Language.
B. These requests seek electronic communications not only from work email addresses but
also personal email addresses.
C. For each request or part of a request that Defendant refuses to answer on grounds of
burdensomeness, state:
1. The number of files and/or documents needed to be searched;
2. The location of such files; and
Page 2 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
3. The approximate time it would take to conduct a search for the requested
information.
D. These requests for production shall be deemed continuing in nature and Defendant’s
responses are to be supplemented as additional information or documents pertinent to a request
is obtained or created, including, but not limited to, additional information that adds to a
previous response, corrects a previous response, and/or clarifies a previous response.
E. Privileges
1. For each request or part of a request that Defendant refuses to answer on grounds
of privilege, state:
a. The specific privilege asserted;
b. The basis for the privilege; and
c. The identity of the documents and/or information claimed to be
privileged.
F. Information requested is any and all information within the knowledge of Defendant
responding to these requests and/or its agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and/or
assigns.
G. Plaintiff requests that, to preserve paper and reduce copying costs, where feasible,
documents responsive to the requests below be provided on CD, not in a hard-copy paper
format. Plaintiff requests that, with the exceptions noted below, each page of each document be
Bates-stamped for identification.
Some of these requests are directed to electronically stored information, including emails
and word-processing documents stored on Defendant’s computers, where practical, responsive
information should be produced in native format, not converted to images or printouts. Plaintiff
does not require that such documents be produced with Bates-stamps, provided each document
Page 3 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
has a unique file name. In the event of high costs of production costs (exceeding $250), Plaintiff
requests that Defendant’s counsel approach Plaintiff s counsel to confer regarding cost-saving or
cost-sharing measures (including narrowing the below requests) before going forward with
production.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Please produce the following:
1. All documents that you plan to introduce in depositions or at trial, show experts, or
otherwise use during the course of your defense of this case.
RESPONSE:
2. All documents, including communications, from 2005 to the present regarding Plaintiff
Charles Williams.
RESPONSE:
3. All documents, including communications, from 2007 to the present regarding the
reporting and investigating of incidents in which an American Sign Language (ASL)
interpreter failed to show up for one of Mr. Williams’s appointments at Cleveland Clinic.
RESPONSE:
4. All documents, including communications, from 2011 to the present regarding the
reporting and investigating of incidents by Defendant or its agents in which no ASL
interpreter attended an appointment at the Cleveland Clinic of a deaf patient other than
Plaintiff Williams. [Confidential health information may be redacted and an appropriate
stipulated protective order will be entered as to the patient’s identity.]
RESPONSE:
5. All documents, including communications, from 2007 to the present regarding the
Cleveland Clinic’s policies, procedures, and practices for providing ASL-interpretation
services.
RESPONSE:
6. All documents, including communications, from 2007 to the present regarding Cleveland
Clinic’s policies, procedures, and practices for evaluating and selecting ASL interpreters.
RESPONSE:
Page 4 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
7. All documents, including communications, from 2007 to the present regarding the
Clinic’s policies, procedures, and practices for using video remote interpretation (VRI) for
deaf patients.
RESPONSE:
8. All documents, including communications, from 2007 regarding Cleveland Clinic’s use of
family members as interpreters during deaf patients’ appointments.
RESPONSE:
9. All documents, including communications, from 2012 to the present regarding
complaints made to Cleveland Clinic about ASL-interpretation services.
RESPONSE:
10. All documents, including communications, from 2007 to the present regarding Cleveland
Clinic contracting with outside organizations to provide ASL-interpretation services.
RESPONSE:
11. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s visit to Cleveland Clinic’s emergency department on or about January 21,
2008.
RESPONSE:
12. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s appointments at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Saqer Alkharabsheh and
Dr. Muhammad Ali Syed on or about September 23, 2014.
RESPONSE:
13. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Syed on or about
October 9, 2014.
RESPONSE:
14. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Brian Hill on or about
December 12, 2014.
RESPONSE:
Page 5 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
15. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s visit to Cleveland Clinic’s emergency department on or about January 21,
2015.
RESPONSE:
16. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Syed on or about
January 22, 2015.
RESPONSE:
17. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s appointments at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Syed and Dr. Hill on or
about April 16, 2015.
RESPONSE:
18. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointment at the Cleveland Clinic on or about
April 23, 2015.
RESPONSE:
19. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointment at the Cleveland Clinic on or about
April 30, 2015.
RESPONSE:
20. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for
Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Syed on or about
October 15, 2015.
RESPONSE:
Page 6 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Respectfully submitted,
THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM LLC
/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Subodh Chandra (0069233)
Ashlie Case Sletvold (0079477)
Patrick Haney (0092333)
1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113.1326
216.578.1700 Phone
216.578.1800 Fax
Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com
Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com
Patrick.Haney@ChandraLaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams
Page 7 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Certificate of Service
A copy of the above document was served by the Clerk with the initial complaint on Defendant.
/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One of the attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams
Page 8 of 8
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation respond to Plaintiff s First Set of Interrogatories within
28 days of service. These Interrogatories are to be answered completely and fully, in writing,
and under oath.
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Definitions. In answering each interrogatory, use the following definitions:
1. The word “person” means any natural person, firm, partnership, association,
corporation, whether public or private, governmental agency or entity, joint venture, or any
other form of business entity.
2. The words “Defendant,” “you,” “your,” or “Cleveland Clinic Health System,”
“Cleveland Clinic,” and “Clinic” refer to Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the party
responding to these requests, and its agents, employees, representatives, and/or assigns.
3. The term “Complaint” refers to the complaint filed in the above-captioned case.
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
4. The term “document” or “documents” means the original and a copy, regardless
of origin or location, of any writing or records of any type or description, whether official or
unofficial, including, but not limited to, the original and any copy of any book, pamphlet,
periodical, letter, memorandum, telegram, report, record, study, inter- or intra-office
communication, handwritten or other note, working paper, publication, permit, ledger and/or
journal, whether general or special, chart, paper, graph, survey, index tape, disk, data sheet or
data-processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, filed, or graphic matter,
however produced or reproduced, to which Defendant had access or now has access.
“Document” or “documents” also includes any magnetically, mechanically, and/or electronically
stored, maintained, and/or recorded data, whether the data consists of words, symbols, numbers,
graphs, or other matters, including but not limited to email, social-media
communications, and text messages.
5. “Identify” means, with respect to any individual person, that the answer shall
state, to the extent known, the person’s name, sex, approximate age, present home address,
present home telephone number, and relationship to Defendant, if any. If Defendant does not
know the person’s present home address, it shall so state and list the person’s last-known home
address. “Identify” means, with respect to a communication, the place of the communication, the
date and time of the communication, the participants in the communication, and the substance
of the communication.
6. “And” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as
necessary to bring within the scope of the Interrogatory all responses that might otherwise be
construed to be outside its scope.
7. “Any” includes the word “all,” and “all” includes the word “any.”
8. “ASL” means American Sign Language.
Page 2 of 6
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
B. For each interrogatory or part of an interrogatory that Defendant refuses to answer on
grounds of burdensomeness, state:
1. The number of files and/or documents needed to be searched;
2. The location of such files; and
3. The approximate time it would take to conduct a search for the requested
information.
C. These interrogatories shall be deemed continuing in nature and are to be supplemented
as additional information or documents pertinent to any interrogatory is obtained or created,
including, but not limited to, additional information that adds to a previous answer, corrects a
previous answer, and/or clarifies a previous answer.
D. Privileges
1. For each interrogatory or part thereof that Defendant refuses to answer on
grounds of privilege, state:
a. The specific privilege asserted;
b. The basis for the privilege; and
c. The identity of the documents and/or information claimed to be
privileged.
Information requested is any and all information within the knowledge of Defendant responding
to these requests and/or its agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and/or assigns.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify all persons with knowledge of the facts, claims, and defenses alleged in this case,
providing a brief summary of the subject matter of that person’s relevant knowledge
known to you.
RESPONSE:
Page 3 of 6
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
2. Identify all witnesses, including expert witnesses, that you intend to use at trial, describing
the subject matter of each witness’s or expert’s expected testimony, the facts provided to
or obtained by any expert in generating his or her opinions, and the opinions held by
each expert who will provide testimony at trial without regard to whether the expert will
testify regarding that specific opinion at trial.
RESPONSE:
3. Identify all persons who participated in answering these interrogatories and the
accompanying document requests and requests for admission. For each such person, state
which interrogatory, document request, or request for admission that person participated
in or assisted in answering.
RESPONSE:
4. Identify all agencies, organizations, or individuals with which the Cleveland Clinic has
contracted to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation services for Clinic
patients from 2007 through the present.
RESPONSE:
5. Identify all ASL interpreters (agencies, organizations, or individuals) whom the Cleveland
Clinic has refused to re-hire after they have provided ASL-interpretation services at the
Clinic from 2007 to the present. For each interpreter, state the interpreter’s name and the
reason why they have not been re-hired.
RESPONSE:
6. Identify all Cleveland Clinic physicians and other healthcare providers who have
complained about a lack of interpretation services for deaf patients at the Clinic from
2013 to the present. State the person’s name, the date of his or her complaint(s), and the
substance of the complaint(s).
RESPONSE:
7. Explain the Clinic’s process, from 2007 to the present, for securing an ASL interpreter for
a patient, starting with identifying the need for an ASL interpreter.
RESPONSE:
Page 4 of 6
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Verification
Being duly sworn, I verify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Ohio that the
foregoing is true, complete, and correct.
On behalf of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ by:
Printed Name
Signature
Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this_ _ _ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 2015.
Notary Public
Respectfully submitted,
THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM LLC
/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Subodh Chandra (0069233)
Ashlie Case Sletvold (0079477)
Patrick Haney (0092333)
1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113.1326
216.578.1700 Phone
216.578.1800 Fax
Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com
Ashlie.Sletvold@ChandraLaw.com
Patrick.Haney@ChandraLaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams
Page 5 of 6
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
Certificate of Service
A copy of the above document was served by the Clerk with the initial complaint on Defendant.
/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One of the attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams
Page 6 of 6
Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH
top related