FI L ED U . S . C O U R T O F A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 06- 1273 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ D. C. Docket N o. 03-62133 -CV -A SG ANDREW

SALTZMAN, VICKI SALTZMAN, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us BOARD OF COMM ISSI ONERS OF THE NO RTH BROWARD HO SPITAL DI ST RICT , d. b.a. Rehabilitation Services, d.b.a North Br owar d Medical Center , HO SPI TA L C ORP ORA TI ONOF AME RICA , d. b.a. Northw est Medical Ce nter, NORTHW EST MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (J un e 15, 200 7) Before BIRC H and FAY , C ircuit Judg es, and DU FFE Y, * District Judge. PER CURI AM

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ *Honora ble Will iam S. Duffey , J r., United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of Ge org ia, sitting by

desig nation.2

At issue before the Court is whether the district court er red w hen it granted summ ary j udgm ent in favor of the Appellee Northw est Medical Ce nter, Inc. (“No rt h we s t ”) . We c o n cl u d e t h at n o re as o n ab l e ju ry co u l dfi n dth at No rt h we s t ’s tr eatm en t of

Appe llant Andr ewS al tz m an( “ Mr . S al tz m an ”) or his w if e (“ Mr s. Sa ltz m an ”, c oll ec tiv el y , “ the S al tz m an s” ) co nst itu te d in te nti ona l di sc ri m inatio n under the Rehabilitation Ac t. T he district court correc tly granted summ ary jud gm en t i n No rth wes t’s fa vo r on th e Reh ab il it at io n Act cla im s. Acco rd in gl y , we a f f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND T his c as e ar ise s f

ro m Mr . S al tz m an ’ s st ay

a t a f ac ili ty ow ne d by

N orthw es t in F eb ru ar

y of 200 2. Mr . S al tz m anand h is w if e ar e de af . O n F eb ru ar

y 9, 200 2, Mr. Sa lt zm an ex pe rie nc edch es t p ai n, d iz zi ne ss , and sh or tn es s o f br eat h. Mr. Saltzm an wa s taken by am bulance to Northwe st, w hich diagn osed him as ha vi ng su ffer eda st ro ke . Mr. Sal tz m an rem ai ne d a t No rth wes t fo r fo urda y s. A ft er he w as sta

bil iz ed , he w as tr an sf

er re d to N orth B ro w ar d M ed ic al Ce nte r fo r the ra py and r eh ab ili ta tio n. Mr . S al tz m anand h is w if e co m m uni cate pr im ar ily

thr oughA m er ic anS ign Language. T hey

can re ad and wr ite sim

ple words in English, but their ty pical wr itten comm

unication consists of w ord strings without gram m atical or sy

ntactical3

str uc tur e. T he S al tz m an s have tw o a dul t c hil dr en , Ro bbi e an d S he ri . R obbi e an d Sheri have norm al hearing and can com m unicate in Am erican Sign Language, althoug h Sheri is m ore proficient. Prior to the events at issu e in this case Sheri of te n a cc om

panie d M r. S al tz m anto doc tor s’ appoi ntm en ts t o tr an slate f or him , but she professes not to b e able to convey m edical term inolo gy

through sign lang uage. O n F eb ru ar

y 10, 200 2, Mr s. S al tz m anuse d aT T Y m ac hin e to c al l 91 1 em ergency

services re garding Mr. S altzm an’ s sym ptom s. W

hen the am

bulance a rr i v e d , M r s . S a l t z man wr o t e M r . S a l t z man ’s n a me, g e n e r a l med i c a l h i s t o ry, m ed ic at io ns , con ta ctin fo rm at io n, an d s ym pt om s o n api ece o f pape r. Mr s. S al tz m ana lso w ro te that the y w er e de af

, that the y ne ed ed an in te rp re te r, and re que ste d th at

one be a va ila

ble a t the hos pit al . A t the ti m e of

Mr . S al tz m an ’ s arr iva l, N or thw es t ha d apol ic y

f or ac co m m oda tin g di sa

ble d patie nts . T he pol ic y c ont ai ne d sp ec if

ic pr ovi sio ns f

or treating hearing-im

paired patients like the Saltzm ans, including li sting contact in fo rm at io n fo r two org an iz at io ns to pro vi de si gn lan gu ag e in te rp ret in g s erv ic es . T he pol ic y

a lso pr ovi de d th at

N orthw es t have T T Y pho ne s f or the he ar ing im pa ir ed . N orthw es t a lso is a str oke spe ci al ty c en te r. A s su ch , it s e m

plo y ee s have training and exp erience in com m unicating with patients suffering stroke-relate d hearing or speech im

pedim ents. N orthwest’ s staff often e ngage in no n-verbal4

co m m uni catio n w ithdis ab le d stro ke pa tie nts usi ng g es tur es , w ri tin g, fi nge rs pe lli ng, or

oth er a ide s. A ft er Mr . S al tz m anarr ive d a t N orthw es t, sta ff tr eate d hi m

im m ed ia te ly and pe rf orm ed dia gnos tic w ork in cl udi ng a CT sc an , E K G , and M RI . N orthw es t phy sic ians d ia gnos ed

Mr . S al tz m ana s havin g su ff er ed astr oke and a dm itt ed

him f o r mo n i t o r i n g . A l t h o u g h th e S a l t z man s c l a i m th a tN o rt h w e s t ’s s t a f f h a ds o me dif fi cu lty c om m uni catin g w ithMr . S al tz m an , and p ar tic ularl y c om m uni catin g to him the nature of his conditio n, the Sa ltzm ans do no t com plain abou t the m edical tre at m en t M r. Sal tz m an rece iv ed . No sign languag e interpreter wa s available the day

the Saltzm ans arrived at N orthw es t. O n F eb ru ar

y 12, tw o day s a ft er

Mr . S al tz m an ’ s a dm iss ion , his d au g h t e r S h e r i arr i v e d . S h e r i r e qu e s t e das i g n l a n g u a g e i n t e r p r e t e r . F r o m th e t i me of her ar rival until Mr. S altzm an’ s discharge on February 15, Sher i requested an interpreter every

day and once gave a N orthwest staff m em ber a business card with an interpreter ’ s nam e and phone nu m ber. Sheri a ssisted in translating for her pa ren ts as s he was abl e. Northw est staff inform ed the Saltzm ans that they would try

to locate an int er pr et er . Anot at ionin Mr . S al tz m an ’ s m ed ic al r ec or ds s how s th at N orthw es t staff c alled the Le ague for the H ard of H earing, one of the two organizations listed5

in N orthw es t’ s a cc om

m oda tio n po lic y . N orthw es t e m plo y ee s w er e una

ble to co or din at e the unp re dic ta ble sc he dul e of

Mr . S al tz m an ’ s tr eatin g ph y sic ian w ith the interpreter’ s schedule. N orthwest’ s staff appar ently did no t attem

pt to cont act the oth er li ste d a ge nc y , nor

did the y m ak e furthe r atte m

pts to w ork w iththe L ea gue f or the H ar d of

H eari ng. I t i s un dis put ed that N orthw es t di d no t pr ovi de a n i n t e r p r e t e r du r i n g M r . S a l t z man ’s s t a y. Af ter four day s of car e, Mr. Saltzm an wa s release d to North Brow ard Me dic al Ce nte r fo r the ra

py and r eh ab ili ta tio n. A lth oughN orthw es t di d no t provide a sign language interpreter, staff m em bers com m unicated to Mr. S altzm an and his wife, using fingerspelling, wr iting , and handsignals, that Mr. Saltzm an had suffered a

stroke, but that he wa s goin g to be “ okay .” T he Saltzm ans wer e una ble to co m

pr eh en d f ull y the m eanin g of

the w ri tte n te rm

“ str oke , ” an d th ei r cl ai m is ba se d onthe iso la tio n and f ear Mr . S al tz m ane xpe ri en ce d du e to the cl ai m edin effe ct iv en es s o f th ei r at te m pt s t o c omm

un ic at e. II. P RIOR

PR OCE EDIN GS O n N ove m

be r 26, 200 3, the S al tz m an s f ile d th e pr es en t su it ag ai nst N orthw es t and N orth B ro w ar d M ed ic al Ce nte r, a lle gin g vi olatio ns o f T itl e II I of the A m er ic an s w ithD isa

bil iti es A ct

( “ A D A ”) , § 50 4 of

the Re habil itatio n A ct , in te nt io na l i nf

li ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss , and vi ol at io ns of F lo rid a st atut ory law.6

T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the A D A and s tate statut or y c ount s, le av ing onl y

the Reh ab il it at io n Act an d i nt en ti on al in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss cla im s. N orthw es t f

ile d am oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t ontho se c ount s, w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d. T he S al tz m an s a ppe al ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of s u mmary j u d g me n ti n N o rt h w e s t ’s f a v o r o n th e R e h ab i l i t a t i o n A c tc l a i m. III. D ISCU SSION A. Standard of R eview

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t . . . , ap ply ing the sam e fam ili ar standard s a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt. ” P atri ck v. F loy d M ed . Ctr. , 201 F. 3d 13 13, 1315 (11t h Cir. 2000 ) (c itation o m itted). “ Sum m ary j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te if

the r ec or d sh ow s no ge nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t and that the m ovi ng p ar

ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s am atte r of law . ” G itl itz v. C o mp a g n i e N a t i o n a l e A i r F r a n c e , 1 2 9 F . 3 d5 5 4 , 5 5 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( p e r c u r i a m) (citation om itted). “ Where the r ecord taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonm ovin g party , ther e is no genuin e issue for trial. ” Scott v. H arris, 127 S. Ct 1769, 1776 (2007 ) (quotations o m itted).7

B. R eh ab ili ta tio n A ct

Cl ai m T he iss ue in thi s a

ppe al is w he the r N orthw es t’ s f ai lur e to p ro vid e a sig n langua ge int er

pr et er c onst itu te s di sc ri m inatio n un de r § 50 4 of the Re habil itatio n A ct , 29 U . S. C. § 79 4, e nti tli ng the S al tz m an s to c om pe nsator y dam ag es . Fe de ra l r eg ulatio ns e na ct ed pur suant t o th e Re habil itatio n A ct r equir e the pr ovi sio n of

“ ap pr opr ia te auxi liary

a ids to pe rs ons w ithim

pa ir ed se nsor y , m anua l, or spe ak ing ski lls , w he re ne ce ssary to af fo rd suc h pe rs ons ane qua l op portun ity to benefit from

the service in question.” 45 C.F .R. § 84.52(d)(1). Auxili ary aids are

“ ap pr opr ia te ” if

the y e nsur e “ ef

fe ct ive c om

m uni catio n w ithind ivi dua ls w ith dis ab ili tie s. ” 28 C . F. R. § 36 . 303( c) . T he te rm “ au xil iary

a ids ” is n ot c onf

ine d to int er pr et er s, but

a lso inc lud es : not et ak er s, c om

put er -a ide d tr an sc ri pti on s er vic es , w ri tte n m at er ia ls, te le phon e handse t am pli fi er s, a ssi sti ve listenin g devices, assistive listenin g sy stem s, telephones co m pa tib le w ithhe ar ing a ids , c los ed c ap tio n de co de rs , open and clos ed captioning , te lecom m unication s devices for deaf persons (TD D' s), videotext display s, or other ef fe ct ive m ethods of

m ak ing aur al ly

de liv er ed

m at er ia ls av ai la ble to ind ivi dua ls w ithhe ar ing im pa irm en ts. Id. at § 36.303(b)(1). Inthi s C ir cu it, c om

pe nsator y dam ag es are r ec ove ra

ble f or Re habil itatio n A ct c la im s on ly

upo n asho w ing of

int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n. W ood v. P re sid en t & T rs . of S pr ing H ill Co lle ge , 978 F . 2d 1 214, 121 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) . W e ha ve notOur holdingdoes not requir e us to deter mine a spec ific standar d for de termining 1 intentional discrimination under the Reha bilitation Act, and we de cline to do so. We leave d e t e r m i n at i o no f

th ati s s u e f

o r an o th e r d ay. 8 de te rm ine d w he the r “ int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n” sho uld be e va luate d un de r the

“ deliberate indiffer ence” standard, or under a m ore stringent standard, such as

“ dis cr im inator

y anim us. ” Bi rc oll v. Mi am i- D ad e Co unty , 480 F . 3d 1 072, 108 0- 81 (1 1thCi r. 200 7) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de ci de d th is i ssu e unde r the de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e standard , the part ie s br ie fe d th e iss ue on a ppe al und er

that st an dard , an d th is C ourt us es the sam e standard . B ec au se the S al tz m an s c an not sho w int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n a s am atte r of lawund er

the le nie nt d el ibe rate ind if fe re nc e standard , sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n N orthw es t’ s f av or is ap pr opr ia te r e g a r d l e s s o f

wh e t h e r amo r e s t r i n g e n ts t a n d a r ds h o u l dap p l y. 1 D el ibe rate ind if

fe re nc e re qui re s kn ow le dge that a f ed er al ly pr ote ct ed

r igh t i s lik el y to be harm ed

and a f ai lur e to a ct

upo n th at

li ke lih ood. S ee Ci ty

of Canto n, O hio v. H ar

ri s, 489 U . S. 378 , 388 -8 9 ( 1989 ). N eg lig en ce , e ve n if gr oss , c an not co nst itu te de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e. S ee Bo ze m anv. O rum , 422 F . 3d 1 265, 127 2 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . F or

c ondu ct to be de lib er at el y

ind if fe re nt, the re m

ust be both know le dge of

li ke ly harm and f ai lur e to a ct

on the part

of apol ic ym ak er , that i s, so m eo ne cap ab le of m ak in g a n “ of fic ia l d eci si on ” o n b eh al f of th e o rg an iz at io n. Ge bser v. L ago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S . 274, 290-91 (1998).The Saltzmans alleg e that off icial knowledg e of the inadequa cy of Northwe st’s 2 a c c omm od atio n p oli c y

and pr a c tic e is d e mon str ate d b y the c omp re he ns ive po lic y it a g re e d to implement as part of

a settlement in the c ase A cce ss Now, Inc. v. Ambulatory Surg ery Center Group, Ltd., et. al., Case No. 99- 109-CIV-Seitz/Garber (S.D. Fla .). The r ecor d shows, howeve r, that Northwe st did not enter into the settlement requir ing a new policy

until nearly

six months afte r the Saltzmans’ visit. W hateve r knowledg e ca n be implied from the f

act of the settlement do e s n ot a

pp ly to t he tim e fr ame of

Mr . Sa ltzma

n’ s v isi t. 9 Co nstru ing the f

ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the S al tz m an s, no reasonable j uror could find th at N orthwest’ s conduct con stitut ed intentio nal discrim ination . Northw est had a policy in place for a ssisti ng hearing-im paired pa tie nts , inc lud ing pr ovi sio n of T T Y pho ne s and a

li st o f int er

pr et ing se rv ic es to call. T here is no evidence that any Northw est policym aker intended or expected hearing im

paired people would be discrim inated against in their hospit al. Ther e also is no evidence that any policym aker e xpected any m em ber of the hospital sta ff w oul d no t f

oll owthe hos pit al ’ s di sa

bil ity pol ic y . T he f

ac ts are that purs uant to i ts p oli cy , N orthw es t e m plo y ee s a tte m

pte d to loc at e anint er

pr et er f or the Sa ltz m an s. A lth oughthat atte m pt m ay have be enne gli ge ntl y

m ad e, ne gli ge nc e is not int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n. T he re is no i ndi catio n th at N orthw es t’ s he ar ing
im paired acc omm odation policy wa s inadequate, or that N orthwest had a prac tice of not f oll ow ing the w ri tte n po lic y it ha d e na ct ed . 2 Northw est, a s a specialty stroke center, also had in place a variety of other au xil iary a ids f or non ve rb al c om

m uni catio n, in w hic h th e sta ff w er e tr ai ne d and10

experienced. N orthwest staff used fingerspelling , hand gestures, wr itten co m m uni catio n, and o the r m eans t o c om m uni cate w iththe S al tz m an s. Whil e the se co m m uni catio ns m ay

not have be ena s e ff

ec tiv e as the S al tz m an s w oul d have pr ef er re d, the f ac t tha t N orthw es t’ s st af

f w oul d of

fe r suc h abr oa d r an ge of au xil iary a ids , w hil e se ek ing the se rv ic es of aqua lif ie d in te rp re te r, sup port the re co rd ’ s c le ar

sho w ing that N orthw es t di d no t i nte nd t o di sc ri m inate a ga ins t the Sa ltz m an s or

any oth er he ar ing im

pa ir ed pe rs on b ec au se of

the ir dis ab ili ty , and the re is no e vid en ce that N orthw es t of fi ci al s be lie ve d th er e w as ali ke lih ood of suc h di sc ri m inatio n. T o th e co ntr ar y , the und isp ute d f

ac ts s howthat N orthw es t too k se ri ousl y

it s du ty to ac co m m oda te he ar ing -i m

pa ir ed pa tie nts , e ve n if

in thi s part ic ular ins tanc e its e ff orts t o f ind an in te rp re te r cam e up s hort. IV. C ONC LUS ION Fo r the r ea sons state d a

bove , the Co urt f

ind s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly de ci de d th e Mot ionf

or S um m ar y Jud gm en t and the D istri ct Co urt’ s de ci sio n is AFFIRMED.