The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted our Motion to Dismiss all claims against an eye practice in Northern Virginia.  Plaintiff claimed that the eye practice discriminated against her in violation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Virginians with Disabilities Act (VDA).

Plaintiff, a DeafBlind individual, was seen at the eye practice and was scheduled for surgery to treat her retinitis pigmentosa.  The surgery was to take place at an outside surgery center not owned or operated by the eye practice.  Plaintiff reminded the eye practice that she would require an in-person interpreter for the surgery.  However, the eye practice apparently learned from the surgery center that an in-person interpreter would not be allowed in the operating room.  The eye practice communicated this to Plaintiff and recommended that Plaintiff reach out to the surgery center directly. When Plaintiff arrived for her surgery, an interpreter was not present, and she did not proceed with her surgery.

Plaintiff alleged that the eye practice discriminated against her by “den[ying] her full and equal enjoyment of their programs and services” and brought a claim under the ACA and VDA.

On her claim under the ACA, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to show that the eye practice had the ability to override the policies, practices, or decisions of the surgery center when it came to allowing interpreters in the operating room.  Her failure to demonstrate that the eye practice had any control over the allegedly discriminatory practices of the surgery center was fatal to her ACA claim.

The VDA allows for equal access to accommodations in “places of public accommodation.”  The Court held that Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the surgery center—not the eye practice—was the “place of public accommodation,” and Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the eye practice provides any services at the surgery center.

Finally, the Court found that Plaintiff did not have standing to seek injunctive relief for two reasons.  First, having been dismissed from the eye practice as a patient, there was “no immediate threat of repeated injury.”   City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Brandt v. Monte, 626 F. Supp. 2d 469, 493 (D.N.J. 2009) (finding that a plaintiff who is no longer a patient “lacks standing to seek injunctive relief.”). Second, because she was no longer a patient at the eye practice, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief would only serve others, and “courts usually do not allow litigants to assert claims for injuries suffered by others.”  Thorne v. Hale, 2009 WL 890136, at *10 (E.D. Va. Mar. 26, 2009).

If you have any questions about this case or laws impacting health care providers in Washington, D.C., Maryland, or Virginia, feel free to contact us. Our Health Law Practice Group is ready to assist.