Archives for January 2002

Pittsburgh couple settles with doctor’s office

Originally appeared in Silent News, January 2002.

When a couple has a child that needs immediate care, they expect top-notch, accessible service. Even with the Americans with Disabilities Act having been enacted a decade ago, doctors’ offices and other medical providers often continue to violate the powerful law when deaf patients ask for equal communication access.

The Majochas aren’t any different. Anna and Darrin Majocha of Pittsburgh, Pa., filed a lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Ear, Nose & Throat Associates in March 2000, when the couple was denied an interpreter for their son’s consultation.

Darrin, who is deaf and communicates in American Sign Language, and Anna, who is hearing, were referred to the highly-recommended clinic in August 1999 for a surgical evaluation for their hearing son, related to a recurrent ear infection. An appointment was made, and Anna requested an interpreter for Darrin so that her husband could participate fully in the medical consultation. The office refused, but the couple continued to request interpreting services.

Anna said, “When the doctors denied us an interpreter, we felt frustrated and anxious because our son needed care and this care was being delayed. We were persistent with our request because we felt it was important to have both parents involved in the appointment and we also knew that we were entitled to have an interpreter.”

Anna also said that the office suggested that she come to the appointment alone, or that she serve as interpreter. “At one point, the office even questioned the effectiveness of communication between my husband and myself. It was insulting to have to explain that we do in fact know how to communicate with one another.”

The office persisted in trying to refer the couple to other clinics, but the couple refused because Pittsburgh Ear Nose and Throat was so highly recommended. The office proceeded to cancel the appointment, and sent a letter informing the Majochas that they would not provide medical care.

“It was truly embarrassing to receive such a letter,” the mother remembered. “At times, we were fearful of being blackballed by other doctors’ offices. We also worried that our son would receive second-rate care.”

In Sept. 2000, the federal district court deciding the case handed the Majochas a victory, denying a defense motion for summary judgment in its entirety. In his decision, Judge Donald Lee cited the letter sent by Pittsburgh Ear, Nose & Throat Associates denying the Majochas medical care and said the letter was “as close to a smoking gun as it gets in federal court.”

The couple, who settled for an undisclosed amount of money, said that their son ended up needing immediate surgery in addition to three surgeries after that. Interpreters were requested and provided for all visits.

“Even though the process of persistently requesting an interpreter was difficult, it was worth it in the end. There is legislation to protect deaf and hard of hearing people from this type of discrimination, but typically it is difficult to enforce, especially if you are working alone,” Anna said.

Anna works for the Arbitration Division of the Common Pleas Court in Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, in addition to jointly coordinating with Darrin the Deaf Youth Program at Pittsburgh Hearing, Speech and Deaf Services, Inc. Darrin also cares for the couple’s two children three days a week at home.

The doctor’s office, under the terms of the settlement, rescinded the letter it sent, and will provide qualified interpreters and assistive listening devices at no charge to patients. The clinic will also train all of the office’s staff and physicians on the new policies, in addition to posting signs in prominent locations advising patients of their rights.

Anna added, “We hope that these small steps help others who are confronted with these issues on a daily basis. Obviously, this case will only strengthen the ability of all individuals to enforce the current laws protecting Deaf people. I hope our fight encourages other families with Deaf members to stand up for their rights as well.”

Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Editorial: Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

Originally appeared in Silent News, January 2002.

Well, deaf schools are taking yet more blows from the press. I’ve been following the series published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about sexual abuse at residential schools for the deaf nationally. Some of them I read in depth; others I skimmed through. I think a lot of them were over-kill – repeating the same points over and over.

Yet, I can’t help but marvel at how adept school superintendents are at sweeping issues under the rug. I understand why they do this: they don’t want bad publicity for what, usually, is otherwise a good and well-run school; they don’t want parents worrying about their kids; and so on.

You know what? Too bad for the superintendents. Parents must worry about their kids. Here’s what happens when they don’t: recently a friend of mine who works as a houseparent at a deaf school told me about how he took one of the students home for Thanksgiving. The friend, “Jeff,” said that the student had nobody come to pick him up for the holidays, and since the school was closed, Jeff took him home.

I applaud Jeff for stepping in and fulfilling an important role in the student: one of a caring person. Yet, the risks Jeff took in taking the student home were high. The student could’ve easily accused Jeff of molestation, abuse, or a number of any other violations. Even so, the more important question is: where was the student’s family? Where were his guardians? This is why deaf schools often play an important role in the development of deaf children’s lives. And this is why superintendents cannot fool themselves into believing incidents, even minor ones, are not of grave concern.

A few weeks ago, there was an incident at a large and well-attended deaf school where a junior high student brought a loaded gun to school. Media coverage of this incident was sparse; only a local TV station picked it up. I assigned a writer to report on this incident after four separate individuals tipped me off to it. The writer had difficulty getting any information on the situation, and the superintendent’s office did not call the writer back. However, the superintendent did have one of my sources (a teacher at the school) contact me to ask me not to print the story because it would generate negative publicity and that parents would be upset. I also got the impression that the teacher’s job was at stake.

Rather than simply saying that the school was not at liberty to discuss the alleged incident, the superintendent chose to cower behind methods of intimidation and use other people to ask us not to print the story.

While the incident is more complicated than what I write here, my knee-jerk reaction was to say to the superintendent, “Too bad!” I am a strong supporter of residential schools for deaf students. Yet, I will never support the hiding of information about gross violations of other people’s safety, especially in schools. I also will not support the concealment of information for the sake of “positive publicity.”

Just because an incident took place at a residential school does not mean it is limited to that school. When I was in high school – a public school with 1,800 students, 80 deaf – a student brought a handgun to school. It was a few hours before someone tipped off a teacher and the boy got a few days of out-of-school suspension (this took place many years before the Columbine shootings). Oh, yeah, the kid was deaf. Does this mean that deaf programs at hearing high schools should be blamed for everything? Of course not.

What about all the shootings at hearing schools across the nation? Columbine, for one. Does this mean hearing schools must be blamed for the shootings? No.

How about the long history of sexual molestation, harassment, and rape at hearing schools across the nation? By coincidence – as I was thinking about this topic – I happened to stumble across a based-on-a-true-story movie today on the Lifetime Channel with Michael Gross playing Dr. Gordon Powell, a school principal who had a history of molesting female troubled students. Does this mean the problem is rampant at hearing schools and they must all be closed down?

Of course not. Problems are rampant in every situation, and certainly the strong presence of these problems at schools – residential or public – must be investigated and stopped immediately. It might seem much more dramatic in deaf communities across the nation because of the close-knit nature and because of the “recognition factor” – everyone knows everyone. But it doesn’t mean deaf people, schools, or organizations should be held to any different standards, whether better or worse standards, from those that exist for hearing schools. The problems are real. Yet, they shouldn’t be cause for closure of schools, as some anti-residential school advocates have been proclaiming for years.

The bottom line is that parents and students have the right to know of every incident at school that endangers them or their friends. Superintendents and school officials cannot ever use intimidation or threaten lawsuits to protect their own reputations. Chances are, the information will come out anyway, and their reputation will be even worse for being dishonest.

Copyrighted material. This article can not be copied, reproduced, or redistributed without the written consent of the author.

Tweets