Ward v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER granting 37 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Brian A. Jackson on 01/24/2020. (ELW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TRACY D. WARD CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
OUR LADY OF THE LAKE HOSPITAL, NO: 18-00454-BAJ-RLB
INC.

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37) filed by
Defendant. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition (Doc. 52). For the following
reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37) is GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
According to the allegations of the Complaint, Plaintiff is deaf and requires
auxiliary aids and services to communicate effectively in a medical setting. (Doc. 1
at 4). Plaintiff sought emergency medical treatment at Defendant's emergency room
on June 16, 2015 and May 14-15, 2016. Id. On both occasions, Defendant's staff

failed to offer Plaintiff an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter. (Id. at 4-5).
Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 11, 2018. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff brought a
claim under Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, alleging
discrimination on the basis of disability. (M at 2 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 18116)).

II. LEGAL STANDARD
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

1

matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining whether the movant is entitled

to summary judgment, the court views the facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant and draws all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor. Coleman

v. Hous. Indep, Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Ch\ 1997).
After a proper motion for summary judgment is made, the nonmovant must
set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (internal citations omitted). At that moment,
the court does not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve

factual disputes. Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cii\
1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059 (1992). However, if the evidence in the record is
such that a reasonable jury, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party,
could arrive at a verdict in that party's favor, the motion for summary judgment
must be denied. Id.

The nonmovant s burden is not satisfied by some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts, or by conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or a mere

scintilla of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate if the nonmovant
"fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an. element essential
to that party's case." Celotex Corp, v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

III. DISCUSSION
Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted because
Plaintiffs claims are untimely. Section 1557 prohibits discrimination by any health

2

program or activity, any part of which is receiving federal financial assistance. Vega-

Rniz v. Northwell Health, No. 19CV0537DRHAYS, 2020 WL 207949, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
Jan. 14, 2020) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a)). Rather than Grafting a new
discrimination prohibition wholesale, Section 1557 borrows from four preexisting
anti-discrimination statutes: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, the Age Discrimination Act,
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of disability. Palacios v. MedStar Health, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 87, 90
(D.D.C. 2018) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a)). Specifically, the enforcement mechanisms
provided for by these statutes applies for purposes of violations of Section 1557. Id.
However, Section 1557 does not provide a statute of limitations. Id. The Court must
therefore determine the appropriate statute of limitations to apply.
For purposes of this case, the relevant anti-discrimination statute is Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This is due to the fact that Plaintiff alleges
discrimination on the basis of disability. (Doc. 1 at 2). The Fifth Circuit has held
that claims under the Rehabilitation Act are subject to the relevant state s limitations
period for personal injury actions. Frame a City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237 (5th
Cir. 2011). In Louisiana, the applicable prescriptive period is one year. La. Civ. Code

Ann. art. 3492. Plaintiff therefore had one year to bring her claim. Because she filed
her complaint on April 11, 2018, more than two years after her June 16, 2015
emergency room visit, and more than a year after her May 14-15, 2016 emergency

room visit, her claim is untimely. See Vega-Ruiz, 2020 WL 207949, at *4 (applying
the state statute of limitations to a Section 1557 claim). Thus, Defendant's motion
for summary judgment must be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(Doc. 37) is GRANTED.

4*
24^

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this A- l day of January, 2020.

.ft.
JUDGE BRIAN AfJACjtSON
UNITED STATES TTF5TRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA