Judges: Blind woman mistreated

From: "BlindNews Mailing List" <BlindNews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <BlindNews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:37:24 -0400

Palm Beach Post, FL, USA
Tuesday, October 30, 2007

By JANE MUSGRAVE Staff Writer

All Annette Sheely wanted to do was to go with her 16-year-old son when he had
an MRI.

Her simple request turned into a federal lawsuit when an Atlantis medical
imaging company decided that the blind woman and her service dog were not
welcome beyond the waiting room.

"It was so demeaning," Sheely said of the decision by University MRI-JFK on
Congress Avenue.

It was also illegal, according to a recent decision by the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals in Atlanta.

In a decision that advocates for disabled people say could help those with a
wide range of physical infirmities fight discrimination, the appeals court
reversed a lower court ruling, paving the way for the 44-year-old Lake Park
woman to recover thousands of dollars from the company.

University MRI escaped liability when U.S. District Court Judge James Cohn last
year threw out Sheely's lawsuit because the company changed its policy to allow
service dogs beyond its waiting room.

However, the appeals court ruled the policy change came too late and the timing
was suspicious.

In a 62-page opinion released last week, the court pointed out that the company
came up with a written policy to allow service dogs to accompany patients or
family members nine months after Sheely in 2005 filed suit. The change of heart
smacks of an attempt to get out of the lawsuit, the judges said.

In addition, to dismiss a case as moot, as Cohn did, it would to have to be
absolutely certain that the company would not revert to its old policy once the
litigation was over, the judges wrote.

With no litigation hanging over it, the company "may well calculate that its
new policy is no longer the preferable course of action and revert to the old
policy it prefers and apparently believes to be legal," they wrote.

Matthew Dietz, a Miami attorney who specializes in disability cases, described
the lower court ruling as "no harm, no foul," which had a chilling effect on
similar type claims.

For instance, if a doctor or hospital refused to provide an interpreter for a
deaf person but later said it would, the person then would have no claim under
Cohn's reasoning. He said he had about 15 cases on hold, waiting to see what
action the appeals court would take.

"There's so many people who are denied services on a daily basis," he said.
"This actually gives some teeth to the law. It's a wonderful decision."

Sheely said she often encounters resistance when she walks into a building with
her 80-pound Labrador retriever, Ken, leading her.

But, she said, when she explains not only that she needs Ken to be her eyes but
that it is her right under federal disability laws to keep the dog with her,
most people understand. The people at University MRI, however, refused to budge.

Steven Parrish, who represented University MRI, did not return a phone call for
comment.

Dietz said it is likely that the firm spent more on attorney fees than it would
have spent to simply settle the lawsuit. He said he is seeking about $30,000 on
Sheely's behalf.

Now, he said, as a result of the appellate court ruling, Sheely can recover his
estimated $80,000 attorney fees and, because the MRI firm lost, could ask the
court to double the fees.

Sheely, who lost one eye to glaucoma and another to macular degeneration more
than eight years ago, said the lawsuit has never been about money.

"Can you put a price on your dignity?" she asked. "The biggest thing I'm hoping
to do is get the word out so there is enforcement."

If business owners and police officers understood laws that protect disabled
people, she and others would not have to fight for their rights, she said.

"Other than driving, I can do what I did before," she said. "The vision loss
isn't what stopped me; it's the way people treat me."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/10/30/s2b_dog_1030.html
BlindNews Mailing List
Subscribe: BlindNews-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" as subject

Judges: Blind woman mistreated

Other related posts: