AQI Services LLC

AQI © 2017

Billing Address: PO Box 269
Chatsworth, GA  30705

Phone: 813.785.1214  :   877.687.5151

AQI Services LLC - Redefining the Culture of Communication

Absolute Quality Interpreting (AQI) - Interpreter Owned

LINKS

When Is An Interpreter Necessary?

  This question is best answered by the Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Manual.
An "auxiliary aid" as defined by the ADA means "qualified interpreters or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments." Alternative methods means techniques such as writing back and forth on paper, or using computerized means of communication. So when is an interpreter necessary?
   The ADA Technical Assistance Manual, answers the question "Who decides what type of auxiliary aid should be provided?" by stating that the place of public accommodation, e.g. the doctor's office, gets to make the "ultimate decision" as to what methodology to use, as long as the method chosen results in effective communication. There can be disagreement over what constitutes effective communication. The Technical Assistance Manual states:
    The physician must be given an opportunity to consult with the patient and make an independent assessment of what type of auxiliary aid, if any, is necessary to ensure effective communication. If the patient believes that the physician's decision will not lead to effective communication, then the patient may challenge that decision under title III by initiating litigation or filing a complaint with the Department of Justice...
    The Technical Assistance Manual has specific examples of when an interpreter is necessary versus when an interpreter is not necessary. The 1994 supplement to the Technical Assistance Manual cites two examples. In the first example, a deaf person goes to the doctor for a routine checkup; notes and gestures are considered acceptable. In the second example, the same deaf person has just had a stroke and needs a more thorough examination; an interpreter is considered necessary because the communication is more in depth.

Getting Doctors, Dentists, Hospitals to Comply

UNDUE Burden
    One barrier to obtaining interpreters is the "undue burden" provision. To combat this, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) has a fact sheet online that tells deaf people to notify health care providers in advance of appointments, that they need an interpreter. In addition, it states that the health care provider must pay for the interpreter even if the cost of the interpreter is higher than the cost of the visit. At the bottom of the fact sheet there are links to cases the NAD Law and Advocacy Center has been involved in. A related, longer NAD fact sheet, Questions and Answers for Health Care Providers, has other important information such as the fact that the cost of an interpreter to the doctor can be covered by a tax credit.
Mediated Interpreter Cases
    The Department of Justice has an ADA Mediation program, where the parties negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. These summarized examples of mediated cases involving interpreters at medical facilities were given on the ADA Mediation Program page:
A doctor who refused to pay for an interpreter agreed to hire interpreters.
Another doctor agreed to pay for interpreters and maintain a list of qualified interpreters to call.

DA Cases Involving Interpreters

The Department of Justice publishes an online newsletter, Disability Rights online news, that contains examples of cases involving doctors, dentists, and hospitals. Below are summarized examples found. In some of the hospital cases, the deaf or hearing patients were in the emergency room when they needed but did not get interpreters, and/or did not have interpreters throughout their hospital stay. Frequently deaf patients were administered drugs and procedures without understanding what was going on, or family members were forced into inappropriate roles as ad-hoc interpreters.
  • August 2007: A Rhode Island hospital settled and agrees to provide interpreters.
  • June 2007: A Virginia hospital settled and agrees to provide interpreters for deaf family members of hearing patients.
  • December 2006: A Louisiana hospital settled and agrees to provide interpreters to deaf patients.
  • October 2006: A Florida hospital settled and agreed to provide interpreters.
  • August 2006: A Maryland hospital that was already using video interpreting, agreed to provide more effective video interpreting services.
  • June 2006: Eight cases:
    • An Indiana dental office agreed to provide interpreters for complex procedures.
    • A Minnesota doctor agreed to provide interpreters.
    • A Georgia doctor agreed to provide interpreters.
    • A doctor in a rural Nevada area agreed to provide interpreters.
    • A Florida doctor agreed to provide interpreters.
    • A Michigan doctor agreed to provide interpreters instead of asking the deaf patient to use a family member.
    • A Nevada dentist agreed to provide effective communication.
    • An Illinois medical specialist agreed to provide interpreters.
  • February 2006: A Delaware hospital agreed to provide interpreters. The patient had no interpreter in either the emergency room or throughout his stay.
  • September 2005: A Washington, DC hospital agreed to provide an interpreter or other effective communication.
  • December 2004: Three cases:
    • A Maryland hospital agreed to provide interpreters.
    • In Tennessee, three doctors agreed to provide interpreters for the same deaf client.
    • An Iowa dentist agreed to provide interpreters.