Opinion ID: 3043583
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: John D’Ambrosio

Text: The record here indicates that the hospital provided the appropriate auxiliary aids necessary to ensure that D’Ambrosio could effectively communicate with hospital staff. It is undisputed that the staff immediately requested a live ASL interpreter for D’Ambrosio as soon as he arrived at the hospital. The request was cancelled only when it was determined that D’Ambrosio needed an emergency catheterization procedure. The reason for the cancellation is obvious: time was of the essence in performing the catheterization and waiting for a live interpreter would have been severely detrimental to D’Ambrosio’s health. Indeed, had the doctors not gotten D’Ambrosio into the catheterization lab as quickly as possible, but instead waited for an interpreter to arrive, they might well have been unable to save his life. In short, the biggest barrier to the staff’s ability to converse with D’Ambrosio at that time was not the absence of a live ASL interpreter, but the fact that the doctors had to immediately begin the procedure necessary to save his life. The undisputed evidence further shows that during D’Ambrosio’s hospitalization following the catheterization, Dr. Wilson and other staff used a variety of appropriate auxiliary aids to ensure effective communication with him, including simple but detailed written notes and graphics. It is undisputed that D’Ambrosio can read and write English and that he regularly uses writing, 17 Case: 14-12771 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 18 of 22 including texting, to communicate with hearing and deaf individuals in other contexts. In fact, in his declaration, D’Ambrosio never specifies what, exactly, he failed to understand in these written notes and graphics. 6 In addition, it is undisputed that the hospital provided D’Ambrosio with bedside webcam interpreting services on June 24th, and with eight hours of live ASL interpreting services between June 26th and his discharge from the hospital on June 28th. In light of the above evidence, the declarations D’Ambrosio and his girlfriend provided to the district court were insufficient to show that the hospital failed to provide aids necessary to ensure effective communication, in violation of the ADA or the Rehab Act. Nor could a jury have reasonably inferred a violation based on the cited portions of D’Ambrosio’s deposition testimony. In fact, D’Ambrosio’s deposition testimony clarifies that the basis of his discrimination claim is that he did not receive round-the-clock live ASL interpreting services during his hospitalization.7 As we explained in Liese, a hospital is not required by the ADA or the Rehab Act to provide every auxiliary aid that is demanded. Liese, 701 F.3d at 343. See also McCullum, 768 F.3d at 1147 (the applicable regulations 6 In his brief, D’Ambrosio asserts that certain written exchanges reveal the existence of “communication barriers.” Leaving aside the fact that D’Ambrosio did not include this assertion in his declaration, the cited written notes, when read in context, do not demonstrate any lapse in comprehension. 7 D’Ambrosio testified at his deposition that he believed a live ASL interpreter should have been present at all times during his hospitalization, even when he was asleep or unconscious. 18 Case: 14-12771 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 19 of 22 “do not require healthcare providers to supply any and all auxiliary aids even if they are desired and demanded”). Because there is no evidence that the hospital failed to provide auxiliary aids that were necessary to ensure effective communication with D’Ambrosio, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on his claims.