charles williams v. the cleveland clinic foundation

NAILAH K. BYRD

CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS

1200 Ontario Street

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Court of Common Pleas

New Case Electronically Filed:

November 3, 2015 09:26

By: SUBODH CHANDRA 0069233

Confirmation Nbr. 585554

CHARLES WILLIAMS CV 15 853657

vrs.

THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION

Judge:

STEVEN E. GALL

Pages Filed: 45

Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26/ / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554/CLSDH

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

CHARLES WILLIAMS, Case:

3907 Northampton Road

Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44121Judge:

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE CLEVELAND CLINIC

FOUNDATION, d.b.a. The Cleveland

Clinic Health System

C/O CT Corporation System

1300 East 9th Street

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Defendant.

Complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act and

Rehabilitation Act, with Jury Demand

Nature of the Action

1. This is a civil-rights action brought for violations of the Americans with

Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff Charles Williams is

completely deaf, and he relies on the Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation d.b.a. the

Cleveland Clinic Health System for medical treatment and care. Because he is completely

deaf, Mr. Williams receives a lower tier of medical care from the Clinic. Despite its status

as a major health-care system—and numerous requests from Mr. Williams—the Clinic

has repeatedly failed to provide him with legally required American Sign Language

interpretation services. By not providing these services, the Clinic exposed and continues

Page 1 of 23

Electronically Filed 11/03/2015 09:26 / / CV 15 853657 / Confirmation Nbr. 585554 / CLSDH

to expose Mr. Williams to the fear and anxiety of facing a disparate risk of medical

mistreatment.

2. Mr. Williams brings this action to compel the Cleveland Clinic to cease its

unlawful discriminatory practices by implementing policies and procedures that will

ensure him effective communication, full and equal enjoyment of the Clinic’s medical

services, and a meaningful opportunity to participate in and benefit from those services.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Charles (or Chuck) Williams has been and is a patient of the Cleveland

Clinic Health System. He resides in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

4. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation—d.b.a. Cleveland Clinic Health System—is an

Ohio nonprofit corporation that provides medical and hospital care primarily in

northeast Ohio.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. Under R.C. 2305.01, the Court has jurisdiction over this civil action because the

amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.

6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant as it resides and transacts

business in Cuyahoga County.

7. Under Civ.R. 3(B), venue is proper in this Court because all parties reside or are

located in Cuyahoga County, and the events at issue took place in this county.

Page 2 of 23


Factual Background

Mr. Williams overcomes complete deafness to great achievement in his

career and advocacy work.

8. Charles Williams is completely deaf.

9. Mr. Williams has been deaf since the late 1960s. He became hard of hearing

around 1943, when he was 12 years old. By 1969, audiologists confirmed that

Mr. Williams could not longer understand speech.

10. Mr. Williams communicates primarily in American Sign Language (ASL), which

is different from signed English. ASL is a separate language with its own syntax, sentence

structure, and grammatical system. Mr. Williams has expressed to Cleveland Clinic

employees and representatives many times that ASL is his preferred and most effective

means of communication.

11. Because of the educational barriers that deaf people confronted when he was

younger, Mr. Williams could not pursue a legal career as he had aspired to do.

12. For 35 years, Mr. Williams worked for the Cuyahoga County Engineer’s Office.

13. Patricia Cangelosi-Williams, Mr. Williams’s wife, works as a certified professional

ASL interpreter.

14. Though Ms. Cangelosi-Williams works as an interpreter, Cleveland Clinic cannot

legally require her to interpret at her husband’s medical appointments.1 Nor would it be

medically advisable to have her interpret. Family members are too personally and

emotionally attached to a patient to act impartially, which is a necessity for qualified ASL

interpreters in medical settings.

1 See 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(2) (“A public accommodation shall not require an individual with a

disability to bring another individual to interpret for him or her.”); see also 28 C.F.R. §

36.303(c)(3)-(4) (generally barring public accommodations from relying on someone who

accompanied the individual with a disability to interpret).

Page 3 of 23


15. Mr. Williams has advocated for the black, deaf community. He co-founded the

National Black Deaf Advocates, a non-profit advocacy organization, and remains active

in the organization.

16. In 1977, Mr. Williams served as an Ohio delegate to the White House Conference

on Handicapped Individuals.

17. When Mr. Williams sat on a jury in 1987, he became the first deafjuror in Ohio

history. He also has served as the foreman of a jury.

18. Mr. Williams has served as the Vice President of the National Association of Deaf

Senior Citizens.

19. Mr. Williams chaired and led the development of the Cuyahoga County

Community Mental Health Board’s advisory committee regarding deaf persons.

20. In 2008, Gallaudet University awarded Mr. Williams an honorary doctorate.

Before then, he had served 13 years as a member of the Gallaudet University Board of

Trustees. Gallaudet is the world leader in higher liberal education and career

development for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Gallaudet conducts research on the

history, language, culture, and other topics related the deaf community.

21. Since retiring from the Cuyahoga County Engineer’s Office, Mr. Williams has

taught ASL at Baldwin Wallace University and Cleveland State University.

22. Mr. Williams chaired the grant-writing committee that later established Cleveland

State University’s interpreter-training program.

Page 4 of 23


The Cleveland Clinic establishes a pattern of failing to provide

ASL-interpretation services.

23. For decades, Mr. Williams has relied on the Cleveland Clinic as his primary

healthcare provider. Throughout this time, Mr. Williams’s physicians have known that he

is completely deaf and requires ASL-interpretation services.

24. Since at least 2007, despite being long aware of Mr. Williams’s interpretation

needs, the Clinic has failed to have an ASL interpreter present for many of

Mr. Williams’s medical appointments.

25. In 2007, weeks before a sleep-study appointment, Charles Williams and his wife

personally met with a member of the scheduling department to confirm that the Clinic

would provide ASL-interpretation services for the appointment. This meeting occurred

on or about September 12, 2007.

26. On the day of the appointment, on or about October 1, 2007, Mr. Williams

arrived at the Clinic’s sleep center at the Beachwood Courtyard of Marriott, but no

interpreter ever showed up. Mr. Williams underwent the sleep-center test without the

ability to communicate effectively with the medical staff.

27. Lip reading—the ability to understand speech by watching the speaker’s lips—is a

highly speculative means of communication, even under ideal conditions. People can

visibly detect only a small fraction of spoken sounds, and many of those sounds appear

identical on a speaker’s lips.

28. After the appointment on or about October 1, 2007, Mr. Williams and his wife

followed up with the scheduling department about why no ASL interpreter attended the

appointment. A Clinic representative explained that because his patient records reflected

Page 5 of 23


his deafness, a report should have been generated at the Clinic’s Access to Care Center.

Upon receiving this report, the center should then have secured an ASL interpreter.

29. The Clinic’s patient-information system reflects that Mr. Williams’s preferred

language is American Sign Language. After-visit summaries produced by the Clinic show

“SIGN LANGUAGE” as his preferred language in the “Basic Information” section. And

Mr. Williams’s appointment schedules, also produced by the Clinic, list “Sign Language

Interpreter” for his scheduled appointment times.

30. On or about January 21, 2008, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams feared that her husband

was suffering a heart attack. Before leaving for the hospital, she quickly called the Clinic’s

emergency department to notify them that he would need an interpreter when they

arrived.

31. When Mr. Williams and his wife entered the Clinic a half-hour later, no

interpreter was present. Ms. Cangelosi-Williams persisted in her demand for an

interpreter and asked many times whether and when an interpreter would arrive—to no

avail. Hours after arriving at the Clinic, Mr. Williams still had no interpreter.

32. On or about March 12, 2008—two days before an appointment with Dr. Alan M.

Weiss of Internal Medicine on or about March 14, 2008—Mr. Williams called the

scheduling department and requested an ASL interpreter.

33. No interpreter showed up for the appointment on or about March 14, 2008.

Ms. Cangelosi-Williams later called the physician’s secretary to insist that the lack of an

interpreter be documented. The secretary assured her that it would be.

34. On or about March 30, 2009, Mr. Williams called the Clinic’s urgent-care call

center at 9:00 a.m. to schedule a same-day appointment at 3:15 p.m. The call transferred

to the scheduling department, then to Charles Imperatore of Sign Language Interpreters

Page 6 of 23


of Cleveland, Inc. (At the time, Cleveland Clinic contracted with Sign Language

Interpreters of Cleveland to provide ASL-interpretation services.) Imperatore said he

would try to have an interpreter at the appointment.

35. A half-hour before the appointment, Imperatore called Ms. Cangelosi-Williams

and told her that the interpreter for Mr. Williams’s appointment might not arrive on time

because the interpreter was at another appointment. He suggested that

Ms. Cangelosi-Williams contact another agency. She responded that it was not her

responsibility to do so and asked whether there was a back-up system. (There was not.)

Despite the agency’s uncertainty, the interpreter arrived on time.

Mr. Williams attempts to call the Cleveland Clinic’s attention to its

failure to provide ASL-interpretation services.

36. Frustrated with the lack of ASL-interpretation services, Mr. Williams, on or about

May 25, 2009, submitted a complaint under his name through the Clinic’s online system.

He detailed the absence of an interpreter at his wife’s March 10, 2009 appointment and

called attention to the Clinic’s pattern of not providing interpreters for his appointments.

In part, Mr. Williams reported that “[d]uring the past couple of years, [he] had to endure

serious appointments without an interpreter when one was promised.”

37. The next day, on or about May 26, 2009, the Clinic failed to provide requested

interpretation services for Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic’s

Anticoagulation Clinic.

38. Mr. Williams submitted another complaint electronically on or about June 15,

2009. He reported the lack of interpretation services for his appointment on or about

May 26, 2009. He stressed that “it is important for [him] to have open communication

with the nurses and staff people there.”

Page 7 of 23


39. In his complaint on or about June 15, 2009, Mr. Williams asked the Clinic to

ensure that he have an interpreter for his next appointment on June 23, 2009.

A Cleveland Clinic registered nurse called Mr. Williams to confirm that the Clinic

received his complaint and interpreter request for his upcoming appointment. The nurse

explained that she knew that an interpreter had been scheduled for Mr. Williams’s

previous appointment but did not know why one did not show up.

40. On or about July 20, 2009—little more than a month after Mr. Williams’s

June 15th complaint—no interpreter showed up for his appointment with Dr. Weiss.

On or about July 22, 2009, Mr. Williams and his wife reported this incident to the

Ombudsman Office.

41. Cleveland Clinic also failed to provide ASL-interpretation services for

Mr. Williams’s appointments on or about September 10, 2009 and October 6, 2009—

despite an ASL interpreter being scheduled for each appointment.

42. On or about August 24, 2010, Mr. Williams missed a scheduled appointment. He

called Cleveland Clinic that day and rescheduled it for the next day, on or about

August 25, 2010. While doing so, he requested an interpreter. But no interpreter showed

up for the appointment.

43. Cleveland Clinic further failed to provide Mr. Williams an interpreter for a

follow-up appointment on or about August 26, 2010.

44. On or about July 3, 2012, Mr. Williams went to an appointment with Dr. Susan

Williams, his new primary-care physician. No ASL interpreter attended this appointment.

Page 8 of 23


The Cleveland Clinic again fails to secure an interpreter. Despite her

objections, Mr. Williams’s wife is forced to step in as her husband’s

interpreter.

45. More recently, on or about September 23, 2014, Mr. Williams and his wife went

to the Clinic for appointments with Dr. Saqer Alkharabsheh and Dr. Muhammad Ali

Syed. Though an ASL interpreter was requested and scheduled, one failed to show up.

46. After the appointments had begun, a registered nurse attempted once more to

secure an interpreter but did not succeed.

47. Dr. Alkharabsheh and Dr. Syed could not effectively communicate with

Mr. Williams without an ASL interpreter.

48. Being at the Clinic to support her husband, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams strongly

objected to serving as his interpreter. She informed the medical staff of the conflict

inherent to any family member serving as an interpreter for a loved one.

49. Left with no other option because the Clinic furnished no ASL-interpretation

services, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams interpreted the communications between her husband

and his doctors. The appointments lasted about two hours.

The Cleveland Clinic’s lack of ASL-interpretation service frustrates

Mr. Williams’s physician during an appointment.

50. Similarly, on or about October 9, 2014, the Clinic again failed to provide an

interpreter for a scheduled appointment.

51. The absence of ASL-interpretation services aggravated the physician for that

appointment, Dr. Syed. Remembering that no interpreter attended Mr. Williams’s

appointment on or about September 23, 2014 either, Dr. Syed called the scheduling

department and expressed his displeasure with the interpreter situation.

Page 9 of 23


52. Whenever the Clinic failed to furnish ASL-interpretation services, Mr. Williams’s

physicians could not communicate effectively with their patient. The resulting

communication barrier frustrated their ability to diagnose, treat, and advise their patient.

Mr. Williams’s health deteriorates.

53. On or about December 12, 2014, Mr. Williams was scheduled for an

appointment with Dr. Brian Hill, a physician in the Hematology and Oncology

Department. This appointment represented the first time that Mr. Williams had met with

the physician. Before the appointment, Mr. Williams wondered why he was meeting with

Dr. Hill.

54. Though an ASL interpreter attended this appointment with Dr. Hill, the

interpreter failed to accurately interpret the communication between Dr. Hill and

Mr. Williams. Dissatisfied with the gaps in communication, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams

re-interpreted much of what the doctor said for her husband.

55. During the appointment, Dr. Hill informed Mr. Williams—through his wife’s

interpretation—of a serious diagnosis.

56. Mr. Williams’s hospital visits generally concerned his diminishing health and the

actions he could take to improve his condition. The inherent seriousness of these visits

heightened the need for accurate, in-person interpretation to facilitate physician-patient

communication.

The Cleveland Clinic cannot provide an ASL interpreter when Mr. Williams

checks into the emergency room.

57. On or about January 21, 2015, Mr. Williams went alone to the emergency

department at the Clinic’s main campus. Despite the urgent need for communication

Page 10 of 23


during a medical emergency, the Clinic did not have an ASL interpreter available for

Mr. Williams.

58. The next day, on or about January 22, 2015, Mr. Williams met with Dr. Syed for

a follow-up appointment, and again, no interpreter was provided. The doctor apologized

for the lack of interpretation services.

59. After the appointment on or about January 22, 2015, a woman from Global

Language Solutions, Inc.—apparently a Cleveland Clinic contractor—called

Mr. Williams and apologized that no interpreter attended his appointment the day

before. Mr. Williams asked to arrange a meeting—with an ASL interpreter provided—for

the purpose of resolving his interpreter-scheduling issues. She assured him that she would

call about setting up the meeting. No one has since called him back about the meeting.

The Cleveland Clinic attempts to use a faulty video-remote-interpretation

system, then replaces it with an unqualified interpreter.

60. Mr. Williams had appointments scheduled with Dr. Hill and Dr. Syed on or

about April 16, 2015. Mr. Williams and his wife attended these appointments together.

61. An ASL interpreter interpreted the day’s first appointment with Dr. Hill. But the

interpreter did not accompany Mr. Williams and his wife to the second appointment with

Dr. Syed.

62. Instead of providing an in-person interpreter, the Clinic attempted to use video

remote interpretation (VRI) for the appointment with Dr. Syed. VRI involves the use of a

remotely located interpreter interpreting through a video screen.

63. The VRI equipment used for the appointment failed to interpret effectively

because the video screen was small and repeatedly froze while the interpreter was signing.

Page 11 of 23


64. Adding to the technical flaws, VRI generally cannot account for differences in

local dialects of ASL—making it less effective than a qualified interpreter.

65. The interpreter could not see Mr. Williams and his wife at the same time to

communicate with them together.

66. Mr. Williams, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams, Dr. Syed, and the VRI interpreter grew

frustrated with the deficient VRI technology. The doctor called for an in-person

interpreter, who arrived shortly after the doctor’s call.

67. Interpretation for the appointment switched from VRI to the newly arrived

interpreter.

68. The new in-person interpreter was not effective.

69. The new interpreter dressed inappropriately for interpreting ASL. To reduce

eyestrain and fatigue, professional interpreters wear plain clothing to provide a clear

contrast. Instead, the new interpreter wore a checkered plaid shirt.

70. The interpreter’s appearance strained Mr. Williams’s ability to communicate and

violated the Code of Professional Conduct jointly developed by the National Association

of the Deaf and the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. This code requires

interpreters to “present themselves in an unobtrusive manner and exercise care in choice

of attire.”2

71. The interpreter skewed the meaning of what Dr. Syed said. For example, when

the doctor spoke the phrase “bowel movements”, the interpreter displayed the sign for

“toilet.”

2 Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct para. 3.5 (2005),

available at http://www.rid.org/ethics/code-of-professional-conduct/.

Page 12 of 23


http://www.rid.org/ethics/code-of-professional-conduct/

72. The interpreter struggled with the syntax of ASL, which differs from that of

English. While Mr. Williams was on the exam table, Ms. Cangelosi-Williams had to assist

the interpreter by suggesting how interpret certain words or phrases.

73. During other appointments, interpreters at the Cleveland Clinic have skewed

what Mr. Williams’s doctors have said.

74. During his hospital visits, discussions about Mr. Williams’s medical care included

important technical terms and industry jargon.

75. Vague or inaccurate interpreting creates a higher risk that patients will

misunderstand their own diagnoses, prognoses, or proper courses of action. It also

generates confusion, stress, and anxiety during already highly stressful and sensitive

situations.

76. Vague or inaccurate interpreting further creates a risk that medical staff will

misunderstand a patient’s symptoms, sentiments, and attitudes towards certain courses of

treatment, which can lead to doctors offering misdiagnoses and improper courses of

action.

77. Because of the risks created by vague or inaccurate interpreting,

Ms. Cangelosi-Williams during several appointments has had to take over as the

interpreter for her husband when a Clinic-provided interpreter failed to interpret

accurately.

Page 13 of 23


Despite Mr. Williams’s long-running interpretation issues, he encounters

more unqualified interpreters at the Cleveland Clinic.

78. On or about April 23, 2015, Mr. Williams had a physical-therapy appointment.

The scheduled interpreter missed most of the appointment, arriving in time to interpret

only for the last five minutes. She also appeared to be very inexperienced. She did not

signal spaces or use classifier handshapes correctly. (Classifer handshapes typically

indicate a particular class of things, shapes, or sizes.)

79. A week later, on or about April 30, 2015, a different interpreter arrived

15 minutes late for another of Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointments. When

asked why he arrived 15 minutes late, the interpreter explained that he struggled to find

the appointment’s location.

80. On several occasions, ASL interpreters have arrived late for Mr. Williams’s

appointments at the Cleveland Clinic Anticoagulation Clinic.

81. On information and belief, interpreters who arrive late to patients’ appointments

still receive full payment from Cleveland Clinic as if they have arrived on time.

82. On or about October 15, 2015, the Clinic provided another unqualified

interpreter for Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Syed. The interpreter could not

accurately interpret questions that Dr. Syed asked Mr. Williams. Because of the

inaccuracy, some of Mr. Williams’s answers did not match the question asked. For

example, an open-ended question from Dr. Syed produced a “yes” or “no” response from

Mr. Williams. Ms. Cangelosi-Williams at times had to correct Mr. Williams’s answer

when she knew that he had misunderstood the doctor’s original question.

83. The interpreter for the appointment on or about October 15, 2015 also acted

unprofessionally by sharing with Ms. Cangelosi-Williams details about a different

Page 14 of 23


appointment.3 She expressed that he should treat information about other patients’

appointments as confidential, and that he should not similarly share details from her

husband’s appointment with others.

While Mr. Williams struggles to secure an interpreter as his health erodes,

the Cleveland Clinic’s revenues and assets—and available resources to

provide proper ASL-interpretation services—grow.

84. Over the last decade, the Cleveland Clinic has experienced dramatic growth and

expansion.

85. As of the end of 2014, the Clinic’s footprint included 9 regional hospitals, more

than 90 outpatient-care locations in northern Ohio, and medical centers in Florida,

Nevada, Canada, and Abu Dhabi. The Clinic recently announced its expansion to

London as well.

86. According to its 2014 audited financial statements, Cleveland Clinic’s net

patient-service revenue that year totaled over $6.43 billion. And the Clinic’s total

revenues exceeded expenses by more than $703 million. The year before, in 2013,

Cleveland Clinic’s total revenues exceeded expenses by more than $900 million.

87. By comparison, Cleveland Clinic’s 2006 audited financial statements reflect net

patient-service revenue of $3.97 billion. The excess of revenues over expenses equaled

$519 million.

88. As of the end of 2014, the Clinic had amassed $12.27 billion in total assets, nearly

doubling its $6.20 billion in total assets at the end of 2006.

89. In 2014, the Clinic launched a $2 billion philanthropic campaign.

3 Id. at para 1.0.

Page 15 of 23


90. Mr. Williams has sought, and continues to seek, medical treatment from the

Cleveland Clinic related to many diagnoses and health concerns—some of them very

serious in nature.

91. As of this Complaint’s filing, Mr. Williams is eighty-four years old.

92. Mr. Williams has been denied the opportunity to participate in his medical

treatment by asking questions of his medical providers and having them explain his

testing, diagnoses, prognoses, discharge instructions, and follow-up treatment in a manner

that he could understand.

93. As a health-care provider, the Cleveland Clinic knew or should have known of its

obligation to provide interpretation services to individuals who are deaf, and that its

failure to furnish these services would cause such an individual to experience fear,

anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress.

94. The Cleveland Clinic intentionally discriminated against Mr. Williams and acted

with deliberate indifference to his communication needs, causing him to endure fear,

humiliation, anxiety, and emotional distress.

Legal Claims

Claim 1

Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

42 U.S.C. § 12182.

95. Plaintiff Charles Williams incorporates all previous allegations.

96. As a man who is completely deaf, Mr. Williams has a disability as defined by the

Americans with Disabilities Act.

Page 16 of 23


97. Defendant Cleveland Clinic is a place of public accommodation covered by

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.4

98. The Clinic repeatedly received notice that Mr. Williams is deaf.

99. The Clinic discriminated against Mr. Williams by refusing him full and equal

enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations

because he is deaf. He has been denied the same opportunities that are readily available

to hearing persons to get information, ask questions, and make informed treatment

decisions.

100. Mr. Williams needed a qualified ASL interpreter to ensure that the Clinic did not

deny him services or otherwise treat him differently than other individuals because of his

disability.

101. The Clinic had (and has) an obligation to furnish auxiliary aids and services where

necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities and their

companions.5

102. On at least four of Mr. Williams’s recent Cleveland Clinic visits, the Clinic failed

to provide him with an ASL interpreter or any other auxiliary aid or service to ensure

effective communication with him and his wife. These visits occurred on or about:

a. September 23, 2014;

b. October 9, 2014;

c. January 21, 2015; and

d. January 22, 2015.

4 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.

5 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1).

Page 17 of 23


103. On or about April 23, 2015 and April 30, 2015, interpreters arrived late for

Mr. Williams’s appointments. Because the interpreters arrived late, the Cleveland Clinic

failed to provide auxiliary aids or services necessary to ensure effective communication

during these appointments.

104. On at least three of Mr. Williams’s recent Cleveland Clinic visits, the ASL

interpreter did not qualify as auxiliary aids or services necessary to ensure effective

communication. These visits occurred on or about:

a. April 16, 2015;

b. April 23, 2015; and

c. October 15, 2015.

105. The VRI technology initially used during Mr. Williams’s appointment on or

about April 16, 2015 did not meet minimum regulatory standards because it produced

lags and irregular pauses in communication.6 The video’s choppiness—along with the

screen’s small size—made effective communication impossible.

106. With its resources, the Clinic can provide patients (and companions) who are deaf

or have hearing loss with qualified in-person interpreters without taking on an undue

burden.

107. Mr. Williams continues to receive medical care from the Clinic, and he intends to

remain a patient of the Clinic. Failing to provide him an interpreter at future

appointments will create a likelihood that he will suffer a substantial and irreparable

injury.

108. Based on the Clinic’s record of repeatedly denying Mr. Williams interpretation

services that would ensure effective communication, it is reasonably foreseeable that the

6 See 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(f).

Page 18 of 23


Clinic will continue to not provide an ASL interpreter for Mr. Williams’s future

appointments.

Claim 2

Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

29 U.S.C. § 794.

109. Plaintiff Charles Williams incorporates all previous allegations.

110. Defendant Cleveland Clinic is principally engaged in the business of providing

health care.

111. At all relevant times, the Clinic has received federal financial assistance and is thus

subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

112. As a man who is completely deaf, Charles Williams has a disability as defined by

the Rehabilitation Act.

113. Disability aside, Mr. Williams was (and is) otherwise qualified to receive health

care services from the Clinic.

114. Because of Mr. Williams’s disability, the Clinic denied him benefits of its health

care services. The services the Clinic provided to Mr. Williams were not as effective as the

services it provides to hearing individuals.

115. The Clinic did not provide Mr. Williams with the auxiliary aids necessary to

afford him an equal opportunity to benefit from the hospital’s health-care services.

116. The Clinic acted with deliberate indifference in denying Mr. Williams the full

benefit of its services.

117. As a direct and proximate result of the Cleveland Clinic’s unlawful conduct,

Mr. Williams has suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic

damages for which Defendant is liable, including but not limited to pain and suffering,

Page 19 of 23


emotional distress, mental anguish, and expenses incurred for his medical care and

attention.

Prayer for Relief

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief from the

Court.

a. Declare that Defendant’s acts and conduct constitute violations of federal

law;

b. Order Defendant to develop, implement, and comply with a policy

prohibiting future failures to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and

services—including qualified ASL interpreters—free of charge to

individuals who are deaf or have hearing loss, where necessary to ensure

effective communication;

c. Order Defendant to develop, implement, and comply with a policy

requiring that when individuals who are deaf or have hearing loss request

an on-site interpreter, one will be provided as soon as practicable in all

services offered by Defendant;

d. Order Defendant to contractually require all ASL interpreters at its

facilities to adhere to the Code of Professional Conduct jointly developed

by the National Association of the Deaf and the Registry of Interpreters

for the Deaf, Inc.;

e. Order Defendant to ensure that at least one qualified ASL interpreter is

available at all times for a patient who is deaf or has hearing loss and

whose primary means of communication is ASL;

f. Order Defendant to continually evaluate and review the performance of

all ASL interpreters at its facilities to ensure that all interpreters used by

Defendant are qualified;

g. Order Defendant to develop, implement and comply with a policy to

ensure that Defendant will notify individuals who are deaf or have hearing

loss of their right to effective communication, including conspicuously

posting and maintaining the following notice in its hospital lobbies and

wherever a Patient’s Bill of Rights is required by law to be posted;

“In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,

qualified interpreters and other auxiliary aids and services are

available free of charge to people who are deaf or have

hearing loss.”

Page 20 of 23


h. Order Defendant with regard to video remote interpreting (VRI):

i. to develop, implement, and comply with a policy ensuring that

deaf or hard-of-hearing patients are able to communicate

through an in-person interpreter whenever possible;

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

VRI, when used, has a high-speed Internet connection; a video

screen with appropriate size, position, capture angle, focus, and

proximity to the patient; and appropriate audio quality. The

policy should require that the VRI equipment be portable so it

can be moved to a patient’s location, preferably in a private room

to minimize distractions and maintain confidentiality;

iii. to regularly train its employees, staff, and other agents about

Defendant’s VRI policies, including training on how to set up

VRI systems and how to get technical assistance when a system

malfunctions;

i. Order Defendant to create and maintain a log of each request for an

auxiliary aid or service;

j. Order Defendant to provide annual Americans with Disabilities Act

training to its employees and other staff addressing:

i. the degrees of hearing impairment;

ii. the required charting procedures governing requests for auxiliary

aids and services;

iii. types of auxiliary aids and services available at Cleveland Clinic;

iv. proper use and role of qualified interpreters; and

v. procedures for scheduling a qualified ASL interpreter as quickly

as practicable when necessary;

k. Enter judgment in Mr. Williams’s favor for all claims for relief;

l. Award Mr. Williams full compensatory damages, economic and

non-economic, including but not limited to damages for pain and

suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, and

inconvenience that Mr. Williams has suffered and is reasonably certain to

suffer in the future;

m. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;

Page 21 of 23


n. Award Mr. Williams his reasonable attorneys’ fees (including expert fees)

and all other costs of this suit;

o. Award all other relief in law or equity to which Mr. Williams is entitled

and that the Court deems equitable, just, or proper.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues within this Complaint.

Dated: November 3, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM LLC

/s/ Subodh Chandra_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Subodh Chandra (0069233)

Ashlie Case Sletvold (0079477)

Patrick Haney (0092333)

1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400

Cleveland, OH 44113.1326

216.578.1700 Phone

216.578.1800 Fax

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams

Page 22 of 23


mailto:[email protected]



Request for Service

To the Clerk:

Please issue the Summons and Complaint and serve the Complaint and accompanying

discovery requests by certified mail to Defendant listed in the Complaint’s caption at the

addresses listed above, making return according to law.

/s/ Subodh Chandra

One of the attorneys for Plaintiff Charles Williams

Page 23 of 23




Charles Williams, Case:

Plaintiff, Judge:

vs.

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Williams’s First Requests for Admission under Ohio Civ.R. 36

Under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 36, Plaintiff Charles Williams respectfully requests

that Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation respond to Plaintiff s First Set of Requests for

Admission within 28 days of service. These requests are to be answered completely and fully, in

writing, and under oath.

If timely responses are not received, the requests will be admitted consistent

with Civ.R. 36.

INSTRUCTIONS

A. Definitions. In answering each request, use the following definitions:

1. The words “you,” “your,” “Cleveland Clinic Health System,” “Cleveland Clinic,”

and “Clinic” refer to Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the party responding to these

requests, and/or its agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and/or assigns.

2. “And” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as

necessary to bring within the scope of the request all responses that might otherwise be construed

to be outside its scope.


3. “Any” includes the word “all,” and “all” includes the word “any.”

4. “Regarding” and its cognates mean relating, concerning, containing, consisting of,

referring to, reflecting, supporting, demonstrating, showing, identifying, mentioning,

contradicting, prepared in connection with, used in preparation for, pertaining to, having any

relationship to, evidencing, constituting evidence of, or being in any way legally, logically, or

factually connected with the matter discussed, in whole or in part.

5. “ASL” means American Sign Language.

B. These requests for admission shall be deemed continuing in nature and are to be

supplemented as additional information pertinent to any request is obtained, including but not

limited to additional information that adds to a previous response, corrects a previous response,

or clarifies a previous response.

C. If objection is made, the reasons for your objection shall be stated. The answer shall

specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why you cannot

truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the

requested admission, and when good faith requires that you qualify your answer,

or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, you shall

specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. You may not give

lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless you state that

you have made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by you

is insufficient to enable you to admit or deny. If you consider that a matter of which an admission

has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial, you may not, on that ground alone, object

to the request; you may, subject to the provisions of Civ.R. 37(C), deny the matter or set forth

reasons why you cannot admit or deny it.

Page 2 of 8


REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

1. Admit that Plaintiff Charles Williams has been a patient at Cleveland Clinic since 2005.

RESPONSE:

2. Admit that since 2005, Cleveland Clinic’s patient-information system has reflected that

Mr. Williams preferred language is American Sign Language (ASL).

RESPONSE:

3. Admit that since 2005, Cleveland Clinic’s patient-information system has reflected that

Mr. Williams is deaf and requires interpretation services for his appointments at the Clinic.

RESPONSE:

4. Admit that Mr. Williams and his wife, Patricia Cangelosi-Williams, met with Malea (or

Malia) of the Clinic’s scheduling department on or about September 12, 2007 about having

an ASL interpreter for Mr. Williams’s upcoming appointment at a Clinic sleep center on or

about October 1, 2007.

RESPONSE:

5. Admit that no ASL interpreter showed up for Mr. Williams’s sleep-center appointment on or

about October 1, 2007.

RESPONSE:

6. Admit that Mr. Williams and his wife reported to Malea of the Clinic’s scheduling

department in October 2007 that no ASL interpreter attended his sleep-center appointment

on or about October 1, 2007.

RESPONSE:

7. Admit that Ms. Cangelosi-Williams called the Clinic’s emergency department before bringing

her husband to the Clinic on or about January 21, 2008.

RESPONSE:

8. Admit that no ASL interpreter showed up to interpret for Mr. Williams when his wife

brought him to the Clinic’s emergency department on or about January 21, 2008.

RESPONSE:

Page 3 of 8


9. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other than Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for

Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic with Dr. Alan Weiss on or about March 14, 2008.

RESPONSE:

10. Admit that Cleveland Clinic received an online complaint from Mr. Williams on or about

May 25, 2009 concerning the lack of ASL-interpretation services at his appointments.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic Anticoagulation on or about May 26,

2009.

RESPONSE:

12. Admit that Cleveland Clinic received a complaint from Mr. Williams on or about June 15,

2009 that reported the lack of interpretation services at his appointment on or about May 26,

2009.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Weiss at the Clinic on or about July 20, 2009.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic on or about September 10, 2009.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic on or about October 6, 2009.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic on or about August 25, 2010.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Clinic on or about August 26, 2010, the day after his

appointment on or about August 25, 2010.

RESPONSE:

Page 4 of 8



Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Susan Williams at the Clinic on or about July 3, 2012.

RESPONSE:

19. Admit that no ASL interpreter (other that Ms. Cangelosi-Williams) showed up for

Mr. Williams’s appointments at the Clinic on or about September 23, 2014.

RESPONSE:

20. Admit that having a patient’s family member interpret a patient-physician medical discussion

creates a conflict for the family member between the personal connection to the patient and

the need for impartial accurate interpreting.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Muhammad Ali Syed at the Clinic on or about

October 9, 2014.

RESPONSE:

22. Admit that on or about October 9, 2014, Dr. Syed called the Cleveland Clinic’s scheduling

department about providing ASL interpreters for Mr. Williams.

RESPONSE:

23. Admit that Cleveland Clinic had no ASL interpreter available for Mr. Williams on or about

January 21, 2015 when he checked into the Clinic’s emergency department.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Syed on or about January 22, 2015.

RESPONSE:

25. Admit that Cleveland Clinic contracts with Global Language Solutions, Inc. for

ASL-interpretation services.

RESPONSE:

26. Admit that Mr. Williams met with Dr. Brian Hill for the first time on or about December 12,

2014.

RESPONSE:

Page 5 of 8


27. Admit that Cleveland Clinic attempted to use video remote interpretation (VRI) for

Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Syed on or about April 16, 2015.

RESPONSE:

28. Admit that after attempting to use VRI, Dr. Syed called for an in-person ASL interpreter for

his appointment with Mr. Williams on or about April 16, 2015.

RESPONSE:

29. Admit that the in-person ASL interpreter for Mr. Williams’s appointment with Dr. Syed on

or about April 16, 2015 wore a checkered plaid shirt to the appointment.

RESPONSE:

30. Admit that the ASL interpreter scheduled for Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointment

on or about April 23, 2015 arrived late to the appointment.

RESPONSE:

31. Admit that Cleveland Clinic paid the interpreter the same amount for Mr. Williams’s

physical-therapy appointment on or about April 23, 2015 as if the interpreter had arrived

on time.

RESPONSE:

32. Admit that the ASL interpreter scheduled for Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointment

on or about April 30, 2015 arrived late to the appointment.

RESPONSE:

33. Admit that Cleveland Clinic paid the interpreter the same amount for Mr. Williams’s

physical-therapy appointment on or about April 30, 2015as if the interpreter had arrived

on time.

RESPONSE:

34. Admit that ASL interpreters who arrive late to patients’ appointments at Cleveland Clinic

receive full payment from the Clinic as if they have arrived on time.

RESPONSE:

35. Admit that Clinic physicians consider patient feedback when making medical decisions.

RESPONSE:

Page 6 of 8


36. Admit that vague or inaccurate interpreting—regardless of the language—creates a higher

risk that patients will not understand their own medical situations.

RESPONSE:

37. Admit that vague or inaccurate interpreting—regardless of the language—negatively impacts

a physician’s ability to assess patients’ medical conditions and advise them accordingly.

RESPONSE:

38. Admit that, from 2007 to the present, Cleveland Clinic has contracted with independent

contractors to provide ASL-interpretation services.

RESPONSE:

39. Admit that Cleveland Clinic does not have a policy or practice of evaluating individual

interpreters’ credentials before they provide ASL-interpretation services at the Clinic.

RESPONSE:

40. Admit that Cleveland Clinic does not have a policy or practice of evaluating the performance

of individual interpreters who provide ASL-interpretation services at the Clinic.

RESPONSE:

Respectfully submitted,


/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _




1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400


216.578.1700 Phone

216.578.1800 Fax

[email protected]

Ashlie [email protected]

[email protected]


Page 7 of 8





Certificate of Service

A copy of the above document was served by the Clerk with the initial complaint on Defendant.

/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Page 8 of 8




Charles Williams, Case:

Plaintiff, Judge:

vs.

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Defendant.

Plaintiff Williams’s First Requests for Production of Documents

under Ohio Civ.R. 34

Under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Plaintiff Charles Williams requests that

Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation respond to Plaintiff s First Request for Production of

Documents within 28 days of service.

INSTRUCTIONS

A. Definitions. In answering each request, use the following definitions:

1. The words “Defendant,” “you,” “your,” “Cleveland Clinic Health System,”

“Cleveland Clinic,” and “Clinic” refer to Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the party

responding to these requests, and its agents, employees, representatives, and/or assigns.

2. The terms “document,” “documents,” “record,” or “records” mean the original

and a copy, regardless of origin or location, of any writing or records of any type or description,

whether official or unofficial, including, but not limited to, the original and any copy of any book,

pamphlet, periodical, letter, memorandum, telegram, report, record, study, inter- or intra-office

communication, handwritten or other note, working paper, publication, permit, ledger and/or


journal, whether general or special, chart, paper, graph, survey, index tape, disk, data sheet, or

data-processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, filed, or graphic matter,

however produced or reproduced, to which Defendant had access or now has access.

“Document” or “documents” also includes any magnetically, mechanically, and/or electronically

stored, maintained, and/or recorded data, whether the data consists of words, symbols, numbers,

graphs, or other matters, including but not limited to email (including attachments to

email), social-media communications, and text messages.


necessary to bring within the scope of the request all responses that might otherwise be construed

to be outside its scope.


5. “Relate to” and “relating to” mean regarding, concerning, containing, consisting

of, referring to, reflecting, supporting, demonstrating, showing, identifying, mentioning,

contradicting, prepared in connection with, used in preparation for, pertaining to, having any

relationship to, evidencing, constituting evidence of, or being in any way legally, logically, or

factually connected with the matter discussed.


B. These requests seek electronic communications not only from work email addresses but

also personal email addresses.

C. For each request or part of a request that Defendant refuses to answer on grounds of

burdensomeness, state:

1. The number of files and/or documents needed to be searched;

2. The location of such files; and

Page 2 of 8


3. The approximate time it would take to conduct a search for the requested

information.

D. These requests for production shall be deemed continuing in nature and Defendant’s

responses are to be supplemented as additional information or documents pertinent to a request

is obtained or created, including, but not limited to, additional information that adds to a

previous response, corrects a previous response, and/or clarifies a previous response.

E. Privileges

1. For each request or part of a request that Defendant refuses to answer on grounds

of privilege, state:

a. The specific privilege asserted;

b. The basis for the privilege; and

c. The identity of the documents and/or information claimed to be

privileged.

F. Information requested is any and all information within the knowledge of Defendant

responding to these requests and/or its agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and/or

assigns.

G. Plaintiff requests that, to preserve paper and reduce copying costs, where feasible,

documents responsive to the requests below be provided on CD, not in a hard-copy paper

format. Plaintiff requests that, with the exceptions noted below, each page of each document be

Bates-stamped for identification.

Some of these requests are directed to electronically stored information, including emails

and word-processing documents stored on Defendant’s computers, where practical, responsive

information should be produced in native format, not converted to images or printouts. Plaintiff

does not require that such documents be produced with Bates-stamps, provided each document

Page 3 of 8


has a unique file name. In the event of high costs of production costs (exceeding $250), Plaintiff

requests that Defendant’s counsel approach Plaintiff s counsel to confer regarding cost-saving or

cost-sharing measures (including narrowing the below requests) before going forward with

production.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Please produce the following:

1. All documents that you plan to introduce in depositions or at trial, show experts, or

otherwise use during the course of your defense of this case.

RESPONSE:

2. All documents, including communications, from 2005 to the present regarding Plaintiff

Charles Williams.

RESPONSE:

3. All documents, including communications, from 2007 to the present regarding the

reporting and investigating of incidents in which an American Sign Language (ASL)

interpreter failed to show up for one of Mr. Williams’s appointments at Cleveland Clinic.

RESPONSE:


reporting and investigating of incidents by Defendant or its agents in which no ASL

interpreter attended an appointment at the Cleveland Clinic of a deaf patient other than

Plaintiff Williams. [Confidential health information may be redacted and an appropriate

stipulated protective order will be entered as to the patient’s identity.]

RESPONSE:


Cleveland Clinic’s policies, procedures, and practices for providing ASL-interpretation

services.

RESPONSE:

6. All documents, including communications, from 2007 to the present regarding Cleveland

Clinic’s policies, procedures, and practices for evaluating and selecting ASL interpreters.

RESPONSE:

Page 4 of 8



Clinic’s policies, procedures, and practices for using video remote interpretation (VRI) for

deaf patients.

RESPONSE:

8. All documents, including communications, from 2007 regarding Cleveland Clinic’s use of

family members as interpreters during deaf patients’ appointments.

RESPONSE:

9. All documents, including communications, from 2012 to the present regarding

complaints made to Cleveland Clinic about ASL-interpretation services.

RESPONSE:

10. All documents, including communications, from 2007 to the present regarding Cleveland

Clinic contracting with outside organizations to provide ASL-interpretation services.

RESPONSE:

11. All documents, including communications, regarding ASL-interpretation services for

Mr. Williams’s visit to Cleveland Clinic’s emergency department on or about January 21,

2008.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointments at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Saqer Alkharabsheh and

Dr. Muhammad Ali Syed on or about September 23, 2014.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Syed on or about

October 9, 2014.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointment at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Brian Hill on or about

December 12, 2014.

RESPONSE:

Page 5 of 8



Mr. Williams’s visit to Cleveland Clinic’s emergency department on or about January 21,

2015.

RESPONSE:



January 22, 2015.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s appointments at the Cleveland Clinic with Dr. Syed and Dr. Hill on or

about April 16, 2015.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointment at the Cleveland Clinic on or about

April 23, 2015.

RESPONSE:


Mr. Williams’s physical-therapy appointment at the Cleveland Clinic on or about

April 30, 2015.

RESPONSE:



October 15, 2015.

RESPONSE:

Page 6 of 8




/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _




1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400


216.578.1700 Phone

216.578.1800 Fax

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Page 7 of 8







/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Page 8 of 8




Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation respond to Plaintiff s First Set of Interrogatories within

28 days of service. These Interrogatories are to be answered completely and fully, in writing,

and under oath.

INSTRUCTIONS

A. Definitions. In answering each interrogatory, use the following definitions:

1. The word “person” means any natural person, firm, partnership, association,

corporation, whether public or private, governmental agency or entity, joint venture, or any

other form of business entity.

2. The words “Defendant,” “you,” “your,” or “Cleveland Clinic Health System,”

“Cleveland Clinic,” and “Clinic” refer to Defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the party

responding to these requests, and its agents, employees, representatives, and/or assigns.

3. The term “Complaint” refers to the complaint filed in the above-captioned case.


4. The term “document” or “documents” means the original and a copy, regardless

of origin or location, of any writing or records of any type or description, whether official or

unofficial, including, but not limited to, the original and any copy of any book, pamphlet,

periodical, letter, memorandum, telegram, report, record, study, inter- or intra-office

communication, handwritten or other note, working paper, publication, permit, ledger and/or

journal, whether general or special, chart, paper, graph, survey, index tape, disk, data sheet or

data-processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, filed, or graphic matter,

however produced or reproduced, to which Defendant had access or now has access.

“Document” or “documents” also includes any magnetically, mechanically, and/or electronically

stored, maintained, and/or recorded data, whether the data consists of words, symbols, numbers,

graphs, or other matters, including but not limited to email, social-media

communications, and text messages.

5. “Identify” means, with respect to any individual person, that the answer shall

state, to the extent known, the person’s name, sex, approximate age, present home address,

present home telephone number, and relationship to Defendant, if any. If Defendant does not

know the person’s present home address, it shall so state and list the person’s last-known home

address. “Identify” means, with respect to a communication, the place of the communication, the

date and time of the communication, the participants in the communication, and the substance

of the communication.


necessary to bring within the scope of the Interrogatory all responses that might otherwise be

construed to be outside its scope.



Page 2 of 6


B. For each interrogatory or part of an interrogatory that Defendant refuses to answer on

grounds of burdensomeness, state:

1. The number of files and/or documents needed to be searched;

2. The location of such files; and

3. The approximate time it would take to conduct a search for the requested

information.

C. These interrogatories shall be deemed continuing in nature and are to be supplemented

as additional information or documents pertinent to any interrogatory is obtained or created,

including, but not limited to, additional information that adds to a previous answer, corrects a

previous answer, and/or clarifies a previous answer.

D. Privileges

1. For each interrogatory or part thereof that Defendant refuses to answer on

grounds of privilege, state:

a. The specific privilege asserted;

b. The basis for the privilege; and

c. The identity of the documents and/or information claimed to be

privileged.

Information requested is any and all information within the knowledge of Defendant responding

to these requests and/or its agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and/or assigns.

INTERROGATORIES

1. Identify all persons with knowledge of the facts, claims, and defenses alleged in this case,

providing a brief summary of the subject matter of that person’s relevant knowledge

known to you.

RESPONSE:

Page 3 of 6


2. Identify all witnesses, including expert witnesses, that you intend to use at trial, describing

the subject matter of each witness’s or expert’s expected testimony, the facts provided to

or obtained by any expert in generating his or her opinions, and the opinions held by

each expert who will provide testimony at trial without regard to whether the expert will

testify regarding that specific opinion at trial.

RESPONSE:

3. Identify all persons who participated in answering these interrogatories and the

accompanying document requests and requests for admission. For each such person, state

which interrogatory, document request, or request for admission that person participated

in or assisted in answering.

RESPONSE:

4. Identify all agencies, organizations, or individuals with which the Cleveland Clinic has

contracted to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation services for Clinic

patients from 2007 through the present.

RESPONSE:

5. Identify all ASL interpreters (agencies, organizations, or individuals) whom the Cleveland

Clinic has refused to re-hire after they have provided ASL-interpretation services at the

Clinic from 2007 to the present. For each interpreter, state the interpreter’s name and the

reason why they have not been re-hired.

RESPONSE:

6. Identify all Cleveland Clinic physicians and other healthcare providers who have

complained about a lack of interpretation services for deaf patients at the Clinic from

2013 to the present. State the person’s name, the date of his or her complaint(s), and the

substance of the complaint(s).

RESPONSE:

7. Explain the Clinic’s process, from 2007 to the present, for securing an ASL interpreter for

a patient, starting with identifying the need for an ASL interpreter.

RESPONSE:

Page 4 of 6


Verification

Being duly sworn, I verify under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Ohio that the

foregoing is true, complete, and correct.

On behalf of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ by:

Printed Name

Signature

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this_ _ _ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 2015.

Notary Public



/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _




1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400


216.578.1700 Phone

216.578.1800 Fax

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Page 5 of 6







/s/ Patrick Haney_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Page 6 of 6
