1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Eric Baum #2591618 (Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed)

Andrew Rozynski #5054465 (Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed)

EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP

24 Union Square East

Fourth Floor

New York, NY 10003

Telephone No. 212-353-8700 

Facsimile No. 212-353-1708 

E-mail: ebaum@EandBLaw.com

 arozynski@EandBLaw.com 

William A. Richards #013381

Alan S. Baskin #013155

David E. Wood #021403

Leslie Ross #027207

BASKIN RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone No. 602-812-7979

Facsímile No. 602-595-7800

E-mail: brichards@baskinrichards.com

 alan@baskinrichards.com

 dwood@baskinrichards.com

 lross@baskinrichards.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anna Marie Pascoe and the Estate of William 

Pascoe,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Oro Valley Hospital, LLC, d/b/a Oro Valley 

Hospital, a Delaware limited liability company; 

John and Jane Does I-X; Black and White 

Corporations I-X,

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 28
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

Plaintiffs Anna Marie Pascoe and the Estate of William Pascoe (“Plaintiffs”), by and

through their undersigned counsel, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, and Baskin Richards PLC, as and 

for their respective claims against Defendant Oro Valley Hospital, LLC, doing business as Oro 

Valley Hospital; John and Jane Does I-X; and Black and White Corporations I-X

(“Defendants”), hereby allege as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs are deaf individuals who communicate primarily in American Sign 

Language (“ASL”), which is their expressed, preferred, and most effective means of 

communication. Defendant, Oro Valley Hospital, doing business in Tucson, Arizona, 

discriminated against Plaintiffs by refusing to provide effective auxiliary aids and services 

despite their repeated requests for effective communication. Defendant discriminated against 

Plaintiffs by failing to provide the auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective 

communication with Plaintiffs; Defendant failed to provide on-site ASL interpreters when 

necessary, failed to adequately train its personnel in the use of VRI systems, and required 

Plaintiffs to rely upon other means of communication, including passing of notes and/or lip 

reading, that are ineffective for communication regarding the medical treatment required by the 

patient Plaintiffs and the services required by their companions. Plaintiffs bring this action to 

compel Defendant to cease unlawful discriminatory practices and implement policies and 

procedures that will ensure effective communication, full and equal enjoyment, and a 

meaningful opportunity to participate in and benefit from Defendant’s services. Plaintiffs seek 

relief necessary to redress Defendant’s unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in 

violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et 

seq. and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 36; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 84; Section 1557 of 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 148116; the Arizonans with 

Disabilities Act (“AzDA”), A.R.S. § 41-1492, et seq.; and other state and federal common law 

rights.

2. Lip-reading, the ability to understand the speech of another by watching the 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 2 of 28
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

speaker’s lips, does not provide effective communication for most deaf and hard of hearing 

individuals. In fact, the upper limits of estimates for lip-reading accuracy, in an ideal one-onone situation, have been as low as 10% to 30% of correct words. This is because only a small 

amount of the spoken sounds of aural language are visible, and many of those appear identical 

on the lips. Even if a primary ASL user were able to determine the sounds appearing on a 

speaker’s lips, he or she would still not necessarily understand the English language words or 

the speaker’s vocabulary, because many deaf individuals, including Plaintiffs, have difficulty 

acquiring and communicating in English. Despite this, Defendant forced Plaintiffs to 

communicate in a medical setting using this unreliable and ineffective method, instead of 

properly accommodating their disabilities through qualified ASL interpreters.

3. Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is a video telecommunication service that uses 

devices such as web cameras or videophones to provide sign language or spoken language 

interpreting services through a remote or offsite interpreter. VRI is inappropriate in many 

circumstances, including when the deaf user has other conditions that impair the deaf user’s 

ability to utilize the device (i.e., if the deaf user has a visual impairment, is in a lot of pain, or 

cannot achieve the proper posture); when there are many people in a room; when staff is 

inadequately trained to set up or operate the device; or in situations that are especially 

complicated or emergent. Despite this, Defendant forced Plaintiffs to utilize a nonfunctioning 

VRI, or to use VRI when it was not appropriate to do so, instead of properly accommodating 

their disabilities.

4. Reliance by deaf and speech impaired individuals upon family members to 

interpret medical communications for them is unwise, dangerous, and in violation of the 

regulations implementing Title III of the ADA. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1)(i). Family 

members are generally not trained to act as interpreters, particularly in medical and hospital 

settings and thus, cannot accurately and precisely interpret and convey to the deaf or hard of 

hearing individual the complete and accurate content of medical communications. In addition, 

family members are generally too personally and emotionally involved with the Deaf patient to 

act impartially and with the emotional detachment that is necessary for qualified sign language 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 3 of 28
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

interpreters, particularly in medical settings and communications.

5. Defendant has demonstrated and continues to repeatedly demonstrate through its 

interactions with Plaintiffs that Defendant’s staff is not properly trained regarding how to assess 

the communication needs and abilities of its deaf and hard of hearing patients and companions; 

how to identify when live, in-person interpreter services are required for effective 

communication with deaf patients and their companions; and how to identify when other forms 

of communication, including VRI technology, the passing of written notes, gestures or lip 

reading offer inadequate and ineffective communication for a deaf patient or their deaf 

companions. 

6. Defendant has similarly repeatedly demonstrated that Defendant’s staff is not 

properly trained regarding how to utilize VRI systems. This lack of training results in 

significant delays and failures to communicate with deaf patients and their companions in 

critical medical care situations. As a result of these delays and failures, Plaintiffs received care 

and/or service that was objectively substandard and that was not equal to the care and service 

provided to hearing patients and hearing companions of hearing patients.

7. Upon information and belief, despite being put on notice that problems with VRI 

result in ineffective communication, Defendant continues to wrongfully insist that VRI systems 

or other inadequate forms of communication be utilized for deaf patients and/or their deaf 

companions as a substitute for qualified, in-person ASL interpreters. 

8. Plaintiffs bring suit to address these discriminatory practices, obtain relief against 

further, future discrimination, and obtain compensation for the damages caused by the 

Defendant’s discriminatory and unlawful policies, procedures and practices. 

THE PARTIES

9. Defendant Oro Valley Hospital is an Arizona acute care hospital registered and 

doing business in the State of Arizona. Defendant’s hospital is located in Tucson, Arizona. At 

all times hereinafter mentioned, Oro Valley Hospital was and still is licensed and doing business 

in the State of Arizona, with a principal place of business in Tucson, Arizona. Defendant is 

responsible for actions and omissions occurring in Pima County, State of Arizona from which 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 4 of 28
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

the claims in this action arise.

10. Defendant’s facility, Oro Valley Hospital, is located at 1551 East Tangerine 

Road, Tucson, Arizona 85755, at which location actions and omissions giving rise to the claims 

in this Complaint occurred.

11. Defendant’s Oro Valley Hospital is a place of public accommodation as defined 

in 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(G) and A.R.S. § 41-1492(11)(f) and Defendant is, on information and 

belief, a recipient of federal financial assistance. Thus, it is subject to the requirements of the 

ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, Affordable Care Act and the AzDA. 

12. Defendant’s website at www.orovalleyhospital.com/oro-valleyhospital/patientrightsandresponsibilities.aspx lists the patient’s rights and responsibilities. 

Included in these stated rights are:

a. “[E]ffective communication that provides information in a manner you 

understand, in your preferred language with provisions of interpreting or 

translation services, at no cost, and in a manner that meets your needs in the 

event of vision, speech, hearing or cognitive impairments. Information should 

be provided in easy to understand terms that will allow you to formulate 

informed consent.”

b. “Care or services provided without discrimination based on age, race, 

ethnicity, religion, culture, language, physical or mental disability, 

socioeconomic status, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or 

expression.” (emphasis added)

c. “Participate in decisions about your care, including developing your treatment 

plan, discharge planning and having your family and personal physician 

promptly notified of your admission.”

d. “Receive information about the outcomes of your care, treatment and services, 

including unanticipated outcomes.”

e. “Receive information about benefits, risks, side effects to proposed care, 

treatment and services; the likelihood of achieving your goals and any 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 5 of 28
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

potential problems that might occur during recuperation from proposed care, 

treatment and service and any reasonable alternatives to the care, treatment 

and services proposed.”

13. Defendant’s website, at the same location, also indicates the responsibilities of 

the patient during the patient’s stay at Defendant’s facility. Without providing effective 

communication, it would have been impossible for Plaintiffs to satisfy these responsibilities, 

including:

a. “Provide accurate and complete information concerning your present medical 

condition, past illnesses or hospitalization and any other matters concerning 

your health.”

b. “Tell your caregivers if you do not completely understand your plan of care.”

c. “Follow the caregivers’ instructions.”

d. “Follow all medical center policies and procedures while being considerate of 

the rights of other patients, medical center employees and medical center 

properties.”

14. Additionally, Defendant’s website, in the same location, describes the patient’s 

rights as they pertain to problem resolution. Patients at Defendant’s facility have a right to 

“[e]xpress [their] concerns about patient care and safety to facility personnel and/or 

management without being subject to coercion, discrimination, reprisal or unreasonable 

interruption of care; and to be informed of the resolution process for [their] concerns.”

15. Plaintiffs Anna Marie Pascoe and the Estate of William Pascoe were married 

individuals who have at all material times to this Complaint resided in Pima County, Arizona. 

Mrs. Pascoe is profoundly deaf, communicates primarily in ASL, is substantially limited in the 

major life activities of hearing and speaking within the meaning of the ADA, the Rehabilitation 

Act, the Affordable Care Act and the AzDA, and requires a live, on-site, qualified ASL 

interpreter to communicate effectively in medical settings. William Pascoe is a deceased 

individual who at all material times hereto resided in Pima County, Arizona. Mr. Pascoe was 

deaf, communicated primarily in ASL, was substantial limited in the major life activities of 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 6 of 28
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

hearing and speaking within the meaning of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Affordable 

Care Act and the AzDA, and required a live, on-site, qualified ASL interpreter to communicate 

effectively in medical settings. William Pascoe was a patient, and Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe 

was his companion, at Defendant’s Oro Valley Hospital, where they were denied appropriate 

auxiliary aids and services for their disabilities despite their requests to facilitate effective 

communication between Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe and Defendant’s employees and staff during Mr. 

Pascoe’s medical treatment in November of 2015, December of 2015, September of 2016, and 

October of 2016.

16. Throughout all visits by Plaintiffs as patients or companions of patients seeking 

medical treatment at Defendant’s facility, Defendant repeatedly denied Plaintiffs the 

accommodations necessary to ensure effective communication as required by law. Defendant’s 

repeated denial of effective communication for Plaintiffs includes providing Plaintiffs with 

malfunctioning VRI systems and/or repeatedly denying their requests for qualified ASL 

interpreters on site. When agents of Defendant Oro Valley Hospital attempted to utilize VRI 

equipment they often froze or could not connect, leaving communication unreliable or 

nonexistent. Instead of providing an on-site ASL interpreter when the VRI equipment did not 

work, Defendant chose to do nothing at all or to force Plaintiffs to rely on other inadequate 

methods of communication, resulting in ineffective communication with Plaintiffs. As to 

Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe, Oro Valley Hospital created a situation which required her to 

attempt to facilitate communications for Defendant with her severely ill husband, even though 

she is not a qualified interpreter. 

17. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs put Defendant Oro Valley Hospital on 

notice that the VRI systems at Oro Valley Hospital did not provide effective communication in 

the instances it was used with them. Despite this notice, Defendant continued to wrongfully 

mandate the use of VRI when it is ineffective instead of securing on-site, qualified ASL 

interpreters. 

18. DefendantsJohn and Jane Does I-X are, on information and belief, persons whose 

actions or omissions give rise to or have caused harms claimed in this Complaint, or whose 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 7 of 28
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

actions or omissions form a part of a combination or conspiracy that has resulted in the harms

claimed in this Complaint, and who are also therefore liable to Plaintiffs, but whose identities 

are not yet known to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs hereby reserve the right to substitute for each 

such Defendant the true names of each such person whose true name is identified through 

discovery in this matter or otherwise.

19. Defendants Black and White Corporations I-X are, on information and belief, 

corporate or business entities or groups whose actions or omissions give rise to or have caused 

harms that are the subject of the claims in this action, or whose actions or omissions form a part 

of a combination or conspiracy that has resulted in the harms claimed in this Complaint, and 

who are also therefore liable to Plaintiffs, but whose identities are not yet known to the 

Plaintiffs. These entities include parent or affiliate organizations of the named Defendant Oro 

Valley Hospital, LLC who are responsible for the actions, omissions, services, treatment, 

policies or practices that have caused a violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights under federal or state 

law as set forth below. The Plaintiffs hereby reserve the right to substitute for each such 

Defendant the true names of each such person whose true name is identified through discovery 

in this matter or otherwise.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

20. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for Plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law. In addition, this Court 

has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

21. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because 

Defendant has sufficient contacts with this District to subject it to personal jurisdiction at the 

time this action is commenced, the parties all reside within this District, and the acts and 

omissions giving rise to the causes of action asserted herein occurred in this District.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

22. Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe is deaf and requires a qualified sign language 

interpreter to communicate effectively in medical settings.

23. Patient William Pascoe was also deaf and required a qualified sign language 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 8 of 28
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

interpreter to communicate effectively in medical settings.

24. Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe was married to William Pascoe until his passing on 

October 3, 2016.

25. On November 22, 2015, Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe went to the emergency room at Oro 

Valley Hospital because Mr. Pascoe was experiencing shortness of breath, nausea, and fever.

26. Mr. Pascoe was taken to the emergency room by ambulance.

27. Although Defendant’s staff, agents, and medical personnel knew or reasonably 

should have known that Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe were deaf and required the use of qualified ASL 

interpretation services through Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe’s interactions with Defendant and/or, on 

information and belief, Mr. Pascoe’s medical records, Defendant nonetheless failed to provide 

a qualified ASL interpreter for Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe and instead attempted communications 

through handwritten notes and lip reading.

28. After being admitted to the emergency room, Mr. Pascoe was given a physical 

exam by Defendant’s staff.

29. During the physical exam, Defendant’s staff used Mrs. Pascoe to facilitate 

communication between Mr. Pascoe and Defendant’s staff by having her perform sign language 

with Mr. Pascoe.

30. Mr. Pascoe was admitted to the hospital and underwent several exams while he 

was there, including and EKG exam, a chest X-ray, and an ultrasound.

31. Mr. Pascoe was discharged on November 24, 2015.

32. On December 9, 2015, Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe went to Oro Valley Hospital because 

Mr. Pascoe had an appointment to have an echocardiogram performed.

33. Although Defendant’s staff, agents, and medical personnel knew or reasonably 

should have known that Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe were Deaf and required the use of qualified onsite ASL interpretation services through Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe’s interactions with Defendant 

and/or, on information and belief, Mr. Pascoe’s medical records, Defendant nonetheless failed 

to provide a qualified on-site ASL interpreter for Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe.

34. On September 8, 2016, Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe went to the emergency room at Oro 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 9 of 28
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

Valley Hospital because Mr. Pascoe was experiencing difficulty breathing.

35. Although Defendant’s staff, agents, and medical personnel knew or reasonably 

should have known that Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe were deaf and required the use of qualified onsite ASL interpretation services through Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe’s interactions with Defendant 

and/or, on information and belief, Mr. Pascoe’s medical records, Defendant nonetheless failed 

to provide a qualified on-site ASL interpreter for Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe.

36. During his stay at the emergency room, Mr. Pascoe underwent several exams, 

including an EKG exam and a chest X-ray.

37. On October 2, 2016, Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe went to the emergency room at Oro 

Valley Hospital because Mr. Pascoe was experiencing shortness of breath and pain.

38. Mr. Pascoe was taken to the emergency room by ambulance.

39. When Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe arrived at the emergency room, Mrs. Pascoe made a 

request to Defendant’s staff for a live, on-site ASL interpreter.

40. Defendant’s staff instead brought a nurse who they claimed knew some sign 

language.

41. However, on information and belief, the nurse was not a qualified ASL interpreter 

and did not provide adequate or effective communication between Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe and 

Defendant’s staff.

42. After asking Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe a small number of questions, Defendant’s staff 

took Mr. Pascoe to a hospital room.

43. Defendant’s staff did not provide Mr. or Mrs. Pascoe with any explanation about 

what they were doing at this time.

44. After being admitted to the hospital, Mr. Pascoe underwent an EKG exam, a chest 

X-ray, and an ultrasound.

45. After staying with Mr. Pascoe during much of the evening, Mrs. Pascoe left the 

hospital and returned home.

46. The next morning, Mrs. Pascoe returned to the hospital.

47. When she arrived, Mr. Pascoe was in an unconscious state, and Mrs. Pascoe again 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 10 of 28
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

requested a live, on-site ASL interpreter.

48. Defendant’s staff denied her request and told Mrs. Pascoe that they did not have 

enough time to bring in an interpreter.

49. Mrs. Pascoe then informed Defendant’s staff that interpreter agencies can provide 

interpreters last minute.

50. Defendant’s staff also failed to bring out a VRI machine at this time, and instead 

attempted communication with Mrs. Pascoe through lip reading and handwritten notes.

51. On information and belief, Mr. Pascoe went into a coma around 11:00 P.M. on 

October 2, 2017, while Mrs. Pascoe was not present.

52. Defendant’s staff failed to inform Mrs. Pascoe that Mr. Pascoe had gone into a 

coma. Rather, they only relayed information that kept Mrs. Pascoe from initially understanding 

the seriousness of her husband’s medical condition.

53. Defendant’s staff finally brought out a VRI machine later that afternoon, and told 

Mrs. Pascoe that Mr. Pascoe should have been taken to a different room to help him with his 

breathing.

54. The VRI machine experienced multiple problems, including freezing, a blurry 

screen, and problems with the interpreter being able to hear Defendant’s staff.

55. Defendant’s staff also attempted to communicate with Mrs. Pascoe through lip 

reading.

56. However, Defendant’s staff often had their backs turned to Mrs. Pascoe, making 

lip reading impossible.

57. On information and belief, Defendant’s staff believed that Mr. Pascoe was about 

to pass away.

58. However, Defendant’s staff did not explain to Mrs. Pascoe that Mr. Pascoe was 

about to pass away, and instead attempted to talk with Mrs. Pascoe only about Mr. Pascoe’s 

treatment.

59. Mrs. Pascoe was unable to understand or fully ask questions to obtain the 

Defendant’s staff’s full opinion on Mr. Pasoe’s immediate condition.

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 11 of 28
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

60. Mr. Pascoe passed away that evening at approximately 6:25 P.M.

61. Even though Mrs. Pascoe was in the room at the time, due to the Defendant’s 

failure to provide the aids and services she needed for effective communication, she did not 

fully understand that Mr. Pascoe was about to pass away.

62. Instead, Mrs. Pascoe spent Mr. Pascoe’s final moments stressed, confused, and 

unable to learn about Mr. Pascoe’s condition.

63. Based on Defendant’s previous and repeated denials of effective communication 

for Plaintiffs, it is reasonably foreseeable that Defendant will deny other deaf and hard of 

hearing persons effective communication in the future.

64. Because Mr. Pascoe was severely and terminally ill during his October 2016 visit 

to Defendant’s facility, without a qualified ASL interpreter, he had no way to communicate 

with Defendant’s staff, no way of understanding his condition, and no way of understanding his 

prognosis or the treatments he was given. Additionally, because of Mr. Pascoe’s condition, it 

was essential that Mrs. Pascoe be able to assist in Mr. Pascoe’s care. However, Mrs. Pascoe was 

not able to assist in Mr. Pascoe’s care because no qualified ASL interpreter or suitable auxiliary 

service was provided.

65. Due to Defendant’s refusal to provide a qualified ASL interpreter during Mr. 

Pascoe’s stays at Oro Valley Hospital, Plaintiffs Anna Marie Pascoe and the Estate of William 

Pascoe were denied adequate and effective communication. They were also denied treatment 

and services equal to that Defendant provided to hearing patients and companions.

66. Throughout Mr. Pascoe’s medical treatment, he had insufficient understanding of 

his medical conditions, the examinations he underwent, or of instructions for his follow-up care, 

all due to Defendant’s failure and/or refusal to provide effective auxiliary aids and services to 

accommodate his disability. He was denied equal treatment to the treatment and services 

Defendant provided to hearing patients.

67. Defendant’s denial of effective communication during Mr. Pascoe’s medical 

treatment caused Plaintiffs significant pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Mr. and Mrs. 

Pascoe were frustrated, frightened, humiliated, and depressed because they could not 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 12 of 28
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

effectively understand the Defendant’s medical providers, could not effectively communicate 

questions or obtain answers about Mr. Pascoe’s health, diagnosis, treatments, restrictions

related to and prognosis for recovery as well as necessary follow-up treatments, resulting in Mr. 

Pascoe’s overall inability to meaningfully participate in Mr. Pascoe’s medical care.

68. As a result of the actions and/or inactions of Defendant and its physicians and/or 

staff, Plaintiffs Anna Marie Pascoe and the Estate of William Pascoe were denied the same 

opportunities that are readily and routinely provided to hearing persons and their spouses to 

make decisions regarding treatments and/or to give consent to such treatments.

69. Defendant’s failure to provide qualified sign language interpreters made William 

Pascoe’s medical care more difficult because it prevented effective communication between 

Plaintiffs and Defendant’s staff.

70. As a result of Defendant’s failure to ensure effective communication with 

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs received care and services that were objectively substandard and that are 

inferior to care and services provided to patients and companions who can hear.

71. Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and acted with deliberate 

indifference to their communication needs, causing them to endure humiliation, fear, anxiety, 

and emotional distress.

72. Defendant’s denial of effective communication during the medical treatment of 

Mr. Pascoe caused Mr. and Mrs. Pascoe significant pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Due 

to Defendant’s refusal to provide effective communication, Plaintiffs and/or their family 

members, and companions did not meaningfully understand critical information about 

diagnoses, prognoses, and medication and/or treatment options, and at times Mrs. Pascoe was 

forced to undergo procedures without the Plaintiffs adequately understanding the risks and 

benefits thereof.

73. As alleged above, Plaintiffs put Defendant’s staff on notice that communication 

was not effective by alerting them of their need for qualified, live ASL interpreters.

74. Yet, despite such notice, Defendant failed and/or refused to provide qualified, onsite ASL interpreters.

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 13 of 28
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

75. Rather, Defendant knowingly limited Plaintiffs to the communication the 

Plaintiffs could achieve through vague gestures, inadequate notes, and the few words Plaintiffs 

could understand through reading lips.

76. Upon information and belief, Defendant is aware of its obligations under federal 

and state law to provide adequate and effective communication for the deaf and hard of hearing 

and speech impaired individuals that visit its medical facility as either patients or companions 

of patients.

77. Also upon information and belief, Defendant and its agents, including those 

medical personnel attending Plaintiffs, were aware that failure to provide adequate and effective 

communication to the Plaintiffs could result in serious and harmful anxiety, confusion, lack of 

understanding, frustration, depression and other serious emotional harms; could prevent the 

Plaintiffs from enjoying the right and ability to understand and participate in Mr. Pascoe’s 

medical care; and could expose the Plaintiffs to serious risks of physical harm and injury due 

to their inability to adequately understand the medical conditions, the treatments they were 

receiving or that were being recommended to them, and the best and most appropriate courses 

of action by the Plaintiffs to ensure long term recovery and health.

78. Also upon information and belief, Defendant and its agents, including those 

medical personnel attending Plaintiffs, were aware that the Defendant’s failure and refusal to 

provide adequate and effective communication for Plaintiffs could result in poor or materially 

diminished patient care and outcomes contributing to long-term physical harms and requiring 

additional medical care.

79. Upon information and belief, Defendant refuses and/or fails to hire qualified, onsite sign language interpreters as a matter of policy, practice or procedure at its hospital and 

other facilities, and insists upon communication through such inadequate means of 

communication as handwritten notes, gestures, and/or lip reading in cases that may not be 

conducive for such use.

80. Upon information and belief, the refusal to offer on-site sign language interpreter 

services to Plaintiffs is a result of a policy or practice of Defendant to discourage the use of onCase 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 14 of 28
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

site interpreters without regard to whether other methods of communication will provide 

effective communication.

81. Furthermore, despite its knowledge and understanding of its legal obligations to 

provide adequate and effective communication to the Plaintiffs, and its knowledge and 

understanding that the failure to provide adequate and effective communication to Plaintiffs 

could and would result in denial of the Plaintiffs’ rights under law and in serious and material 

harm and injury to the Plaintiffs, Defendant knowingly, intentionally and maliciously failed 

and/or refused to provide adequate and effective communication to Plaintiffs in an intentional 

and/or deliberately indifferent violation of Plaintiffs’ rights.

82. It is reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe will continue to 

visit Defendant’s facility, either by choice or necessity, due to the proximity of Defendant’s 

facility to her home. Based on Defendant’s previous and repeated denials of effective 

communication for Plaintiffs, it is reasonably foreseeable that a denial of effective 

communication for Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe as a result of Defendant’s actions, omissions, 

policies or practices will occur again. Accordingly, Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe is aware of 

discriminatory barriers to access at Defendant’s facilities and is thereby deterred from accessing 

Defendant’s healthcare services because of the discrimination she has faced and expects to face 

in the future, even though she would do so if the discriminatory acts ceased. Therefore, 

Defendant’s actions warrant the imposition of injunctive relief to ensure the cessation of 

Defendant’s wrongful conduct.

83. Defendant’s actions and omissions resulting in harms to the Plaintiffs were 

willful, malicious, intentional, recklessly indifferent and undertaken with an evil mind and 

motive and with disregard for and deliberate indifference to the legal rights of Plaintiffs under 

federal and state law and the substantial risk of serious and material harms to the Plaintiffs. 

Therefore, to the extent allowed by any applicable law, Defendant’s actions would warrant the 

imposition of punitive or exemplary damages to punish the Defendant for its wrongful conduct 

and to deter other similarly situated persons or entities from similar future conduct.

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 15 of 28
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

CLAIM 1: VIOLATIONS OF TITLE III OF THE AMERICANS WITH 

DISABILITIES ACT

84. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding allegations of this Complaint in 

support of this claim as if set forth fully herein.

85. At all times relevant to this action, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. has been in full force and effect and has applied to 

Defendant’s conduct.

86. At all times relevant to this action, the United States Department of Justice 

regulations implementing Title III of the ADA, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, were in full force and effect 

and applied to the Defendant’s conduct.

87. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs have been substantially limited in 

the major life activities of hearing and speaking. Accordingly, they are considered individuals 

with a disability as defined under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).

88. Defendant owns, leases, and/or operates a place of public accommodation as 

defined under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F).

89. Title III of the ADA provides that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against 

on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any 

person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182(a).

90. Title III of the ADA defines discrimination to include denying participation or 

offering unequal or separate benefits to individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.202.

91. Title III of the ADA further defines discrimination to include “a failure to take 

such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied 

services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the 

absence of auxiliary aids and services . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).

92. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations it “shall be 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 16 of 28
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

discriminatory to exclude or otherwise deny equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to an individual or entity because of the 

known disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity is known to have a 

relationship or association.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(E).

93. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a public 

accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective 

communication with individual with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 

36.303(b)(1).

94. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a public 

accommodation, in choosing the type of auxiliary aid or service to ensure effective 

communication, must consider the “method of communication used by the individual; the 

nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the 

communication is taking place.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1)(ii).

95. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, in order to be 

effective, the type of auxiliary aid or service provided by the public accommodations “must be 

provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy 

and independence of the individual with a disability.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1)(ii).

96. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, when a public 

accommodation provides VRI service, it must ensure that the service includes all the following 

criteria: “(1) [r]eal-time, full-motion video and audio over a dedicated high-speed, widebandwidth video connection or wireless connection that delivers high-quality video images that 

do not produce lags, choppy, blurry, or grainy images, or irregular pauses in communication; 

(2) [a] sharply delineated image that is large enough to display the interpreter’s face, arms, 

hands, and fingers, and the participating individual’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, regardless 

of his or her body position; (3) [a] clear, audible transmission of voices; and (4) [a]dequate 

training to users of the technology and other involved individuals so that they may quickly and 

efficiently set up and operate the VRI.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(f).

97. Based on all of the foregoing allegations confirming the Defendant’s treatment 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 17 of 28
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

and interactions with the Plaintiffs, Defendant discriminated against the individual Plaintiffs 

by: (1) denying Plaintiffs an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from Defendant’s 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations, in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A); (2) failing to ensure adequate and effective communication for

Plaintiffs through the provision of on-site qualified sign language interpreters, in violation of 

42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A); (3) failing to ensure adequate and effective communication for 

Plaintiffs by relying on inadequate means of communication other than qualified sign language 

interpreters; (4) excluding or otherwise denying equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to Plaintiffs because of the known 

disability of an individual with whom the individual is known to have a relationship or 

association, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(E); and (5) failing to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to 

afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals 

with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A).

98. As set out above, absent injunctive relief there is a clear risk that Defendant’s 

actions will recur with Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe and/or additional deaf persons. Plaintiff 

Anna Marie Pascoe is therefore entitled to injunctive relief, as well as an award of attorney’s 

fees, costs, and disbursements pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1) and/or common 

law.

CLAIM 2: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

99. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding allegations of this Complaint in 

support of this claim as if set forth fully herein.

100. At all times relevant to this action, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 794 has been in full force and effect and has applied to the Defendant’s conduct.

101. At all times relevant to this action, the United States Department of Health and 

Human Services (“HHS”) regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 45 

C.F.R. Part 84, have been in full force and effect and have applied to the Defendant’s conduct.

102. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs have had substantial impairment to 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 18 of 28
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

the major life activities of hearing and speaking within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, 

29 U.S.C. § 705(9), and its implementing regulations at 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j). Accordingly, they 

are individuals with a disability as defined under the Rehabilitation Act. 

103. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were qualified to receive services 

through Defendant’s facilities.

104. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action Defendant has 

received federal financial assistance, including Medicaid reimbursements, and has been 

principally engaged in the business of providing health care. Therefore, Defendant and its 

associated medical facilities qualify as a program or activity receiving federal financial 

assistance pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).

105. Pursuant to Section 504, “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . 

shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied 

the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving 

Federal financial assistance . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794.

106. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiffs’ treatment by and 

interactions with Defendant and its agents and medical personnel operating within its facilities, 

Defendant has discriminated against and continues to discriminate against the individual 

Plaintiffs by denying them meaningful access to the services, programs, and benefits the 

Defendant offers to other individuals, and by refusing to provide auxiliary aids and services 

necessary to ensure effective communication with Plaintiffs, in violation of Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794.

107. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiffs’ treatment by and 

interactions with Defendant and its agents and medical personnel operating within its facilities, 

Defendant further discriminated against the individual Plaintiffs by: 1) failing to ensure 

adequate and effective communication with Plaintiffs through the specific provision of 

qualified, in-person sign language interpreters; 2) failing to ensure adequate and effective 

communication with Plaintiffs through VRI systems that functioned properly; and 3) requiring 

Plaintiffs to rely upon ineffective and inadequate means of communication including passing 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 19 of 28
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

of handwritten notes, gestures and/or lip reading.

108. Defendant’s violation of its obligations and the Plaintiffs’ rights under the 

Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations has caused substantial damages, suffering, 

loss and harm to the Plaintiffs, including, without limitation, serious and lasting emotional

harm, anxiety, frustration, fear and other serious emotional conditions or symptoms.

109. As set out above, absent injunctive relief there is a clear risk that Defendant’s 

actions will recur again with Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe, and other deaf patients, their 

companions and family members.

110. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to seek and recover all appropriate compensatory 

damages for the injuries and losses they sustained as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory 

conduct and deliberate indifference as hereinbefore alleged, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

111. Plaintiffs are further entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and 

disbursements pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and/or common law.

CLAIM 3: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 1557 OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION 

AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

112. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding allegations of this Complaint in 

support of this claim as if set forth fully herein.

113. At all times relevant to this action, Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (“Section 1557”), 42 U.S.C. § 18116 was in full force and effect and 

applied to the Defendant’s conduct.

114. At all times relevant to this action, Section 1557, 42 U.S.C. § 18116, incorporated 

the definition of disability in the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(9).

115. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs had substantial limitations to the 

major life activity of hearing and speaking, and were individuals with disabilities within the 

meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(9) and of Section 1557, 42 U.S.C. § 18116. 

116. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs’ primary language for 

communication was American Sign Language and not English; and Plaintiffs had limited ability 

to read, write, speak, or understand English, and were individuals with limited English 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 20 of 28
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

proficiency within the meaning of Section 1557, 45 C.F.R. § 92.4.

117. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant received federal financial 

assistance, including Medicaid reimbursements, and was principally engaged in the business of 

providing health care. Therefore, Defendant is a health program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a).

118. Pursuant to Section 1557, “an individual shall not, on the ground prohibited under 

. . . section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), be excluded from 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health 

program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance . . .” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 18116.

119. Defendants have discriminated and continue to discriminate against Plaintiffs by 

denying them meaningful access to the services, programs, and benefits the Defendant offers 

to other individuals and by refusing to provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to ensure 

effective communication with Plaintiffs in violation of Section 1557, 42 U.S.C. § 18116.

120. Defendants discriminated against the individual Plaintiffs by failing to ensure 

effective communication with Plaintiffs through the providing of qualified sign language 

interpreters on-site and/or through properly functioning VRI machines.

121. On information and belief, the refusal to offer on-site ASL interpreter services is 

as a result of a policy or practice of Defendants to prohibit or impede the use of on-site qualified 

sign language interpreters without regard to whether VRI services will provide effective 

communication.

122. As set out above, absent injunctive relief there is a clear risk that Defendants’ 

actions will recur again with Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe, and other Deaf patients and family 

members.

123. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to seek and recover compensatory damages for the 

injuries and loss they sustained as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct and deliberate 

indifference as hereinbefore alleged, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a).

124. Plaintiffs are further entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 21 of 28
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

disbursements pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a), the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) 

and/or common law.

CLAIM 4: VIOLATIONS OF THE ARIZONANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

125. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding allegations of this Complaint in 

support of this claim as if set forth fully herein.

126. At all times relevant to this action, the Arizonans with Disabilities Act (AzDA), 

A.R.S. § 41-1492, et seq., has been in full force and effect and has applied to Defendant’s 

conduct.

127. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs have had substantial impairment to 

a major life activity of hearing and speaking and are qualified individuals with a disability 

within the meaning of the AzDA, A.R.S. §§ 41-1492(6) and (8)(a).

128. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s facilities at which Plaintiffs were 

served or treated were and are places of public accommodation within the meaning of AzDA, 

A.R.S. § 41-1492(11). 

129. The AzDA, A.R.S. § 41-1492.02(A), states that “[n]o individual may be 

discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public 

accommodation by any person who owns, leases, leases to others or operates a place of public 

accommodation.”

130. Discrimination under the AzDA includes any “failure to take such steps as may 

be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, 

segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of 

reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures or auxiliary aids and services.” 

A.R.S. § 41-1492.02(G)(3). 

131. Discrimination under the AzDA also includes exclusion or denial or “equal goods, 

services, facilities, privileged, advantages, accommodations or other opportunities to an 

individual or entity because of the known disability of an individual with whom the individual 

or entity is known to have a relationship or association.” A.R.S. §41-1492.02(F).

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 22 of 28
23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

132. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiffs’ treatment by and 

interactions with Defendant and its agents and medical personnel operating within its facilities, 

Defendant has discriminated against and continues to discriminate against the individual 

Plaintiffs by denying them meaningful access to the services, programs, and benefits the 

Defendant offers to other individuals, by failing and refusing to modify the Defendant’s 

policies, procedures and practices regarding reliance on VRI systems or other methods of 

communication other than live, ASL on-site interpreters, and by its refusal to provide live, onsite sign language interpreters, and by its refusing to provide auxiliary aids and services 

necessary to ensure effective communication, in violation of the AzDA and the Plaintiffs’ rights 

thereunder.

133. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the patient Plaintiffs’ treatment by 

and interactions with Defendant and its agents and medical personnel operating within its 

facilities, Defendant specifically discriminated against the individual Plaintiffs by: 1) failing to 

ensure adequate and effective communication with Plaintiffs through the specific provision of 

qualified, in-person sign language interpreters; 2) failing to ensure adequate and effective 

communication with the Plaintiffs through VRI systems that functioned properly; and 3) 

requiring the Deaf Plaintiffs to rely upon ineffective and inadequate means of communication 

including passing of handwritten notes, gestures and/or lip reading.

134. Discrimination under the AzDA also includes, “[a] failure to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices or procedures, if these modifications are necessary to afford 

these goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with 

disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making these modifications would 

fundamentally alter the nature of these goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 

accommodations.” A.R.S. § 41-1492.02(G)(2)

135. Upon information and belief, Defendant has a policy of using VRI except in 

certain discrete situations.

136. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiffs’ treatment by and 

interactions with Defendant and its agents and medical personnel operating within its facilities, 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 23 of 28
24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

Plaintiffs requested reasonable accommodations to Defendant’s patient and companion 

communication policy and/or Defendant had reason to know of the Plaintiffs’ disabilities and 

inability to request an accommodation, and that Plaintiffs needed a reasonable accommodation, 

but nonetheless denied Plaintiffs a reasonable accommodation, which resulted in Plaintiffs 

being harmed.

137. Defendant’s violation of its obligations and the Plaintiffs’ rights under the AzDA 

has caused substantial damages, suffering, loss and harm to the Plaintiffs, including, without 

limitation, serious and lasting emotional harm, anxiety, frustration, fear and other serious 

emotional conditions or symptoms. 

138. As set out above, absent injunctive relief there is a clear risk that Defendant’s 

actions will recur with Plaintiff Anna Marie Pascoe, and/or additional deaf persons.

139. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to seek and recover all appropriate compensatory 

damages and injunctive relief for the injuries and losses they sustained as a result of Defendants’

discriminatory conduct and deliberate indifference as hereinbefore alleged, including as 

allowed pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1492.09.

140. Plaintiffs are further entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and 

disbursements pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1492.09 and/or as otherwise provided at law

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant the following relief 

against the Defendants:

A. Enter a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, stating that Defendants’ practices, policies and procedures have subjected 

Plaintiffs to discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and 

the Arizonans with Disabilities Act;

B. Enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing any policy, procedure, or practice 

that denies individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, such as Plaintiffs, meaningful 

access to and full and equal enjoyment in Defendants’services or programs;

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 24 of 28
25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

C. Order Defendant:

i. to develop and comply with written policies, procedures, and practices to 

ensure that Defendants do not discriminate in the future against Plaintiff 

Anna Marie Pascoe and other similarly situated individuals who are deaf or 

hard of hearing by failing to provide effective communication; 

ii. to develop, promulgate, implement and comply with a policy requiring that 

when a patient or other deaf individual appearing as a companion or family 

member for a patient requests an on-site interpreter for effective 

communication, a fully qualified sign language interpreter will be provided 

as soon as practicable in all services offered by Defendants;

iii. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy to ensure that 

Defendants will notify individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing of their 

rights to effective communication under all applicable federal and state law. 

This notification will include posting explicit and clearly worded notices 

that Defendants will provide sign language interpreters, videophones, and 

other communication services to ensure effective communication with deaf 

or hard of hearing persons;

iv. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy to ensure, in 

the event any facility operated by Defendants utilize a Video Remote 

Interpreting System (“VRI”), that such system has all functions and 

characteristics necessary to ensure it provides for effective communication 

given all the conditions and circumstances present, including without 

limitation that such system utilizes; 1) a high-speed Internet connection; 

2) a video screen and camera with appropriate size, resolution, position, 

capture angle, focus, and proximity to the deaf individual; and 3) 

appropriate audio quality. When necessary for effective communication the 

equipment must be portable and made available to the patient where the 

patient is located, preferably in a private room to minimize distractions and 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 25 of 28
26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

maintain confidentiality;

v. To provide at all times and at all Defendants’ medical facilities utilizing 

VRI systems adequately trained and experienced employees or contractors 

sufficient to ensure that any VRI systems or related communications 

equipment or resources are maintained at all times in proper working 

condition and can be promptly fixed in time to avoid any prejudice or 

unreasonable delay in patient care or companion communication;

vi. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy to ensure that 

deaf or hard-of-hearing patients are able to communicate through the most 

appropriate method under the circumstances, recognizing that the VRI is 

not appropriate in all medical situations;

vii. to create and maintain a list of American Sign Language interpreters and 

ensure availability of such interpreters at any time of day or night;

viii. to train all its employees, staff, and other agents on a regular basis about 

the rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing under the ADA, 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and 

the AzDA;

ix. to train all its employees, staff, and other agents on a regular basis about 

how to properly assess when VRI or other alternative means of 

communication do not provide effective communication for a deaf patient 

or other deaf and hard of hearing companions or visitors to the Defendants’

facilities;

x. to train its employees, staff, and other agents on a regular basis about 

Defendants’ policies regarding when and how to properly use VRI services 

(including how to set up the VRI system and how to obtain technical 

assistance in case of system malfunction or failure) and how to obtain 

interpreters when requested by deaf or hard of hearing patients or 

companions;

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 26 of 28
27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

D. Award to Plaintiffs:

i. all appropriate actual and compensatory damages pursuant to Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and the 

Arizonans with Disabilities Act sufficient to fully remedy all damages, 

suffering, injury and losses caused to Plaintiffs by Defendants;

ii. to the extent allowed by any applicable law, punitive damages in an amount 

sufficient to punish the Defendants and to deter similarly situated persons 

or entities from similar future conduct; 

iii. reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the ADA, Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and the 

AzDA;

iv. interest on all amounts at the highest rates and from the earliest dates 

allowed by law;

v. any and all other relief that this Court finds just, necessary and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury for all of the issues a jury properly may decide, and for 

all of the requested relief that a jury may award.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 27 of 28
28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of November, 2017.

BASKIN RICHARDS PLC

/s/ William A. Richards

William A. Richards

Alan S. Baskin

David E. Wood

Leslie Ross

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, AZ 85012

AND

EISENBERG & BAUM, L.L.P.

Eric Baum, Esq.

Andrew Rozynski, Esq.

24 Union Square East

Fourth Floor

New York, NY 10003

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 4:17-cv-00569-CKJ Document 1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 28 of 28