Jury awards $60,000 in deaf couple’s suit > Obstetricians failed to provide interpreter

PORTLAND – A jury has awarded $60,000 to a Kittery man at the close of a weeklong trial in which federal prosecutors alleged that an obstetrics practice in York broke the law by failing to provide a sign language interpreter to a deaf couple.

After eight hours of deliberation, the U.S. District Court jury Tuesday night found that York Women’s Care Associates violated the Americans With Disabilities Act in the case of Raymond McLaren and awarded him compensatory damages.

The civil jury of six women and two men denied claims of discrimination against Megan Smith-McLaren, who was a patient of Drs. Lynda Wright and Stephen Wagoner during a high-risk pregnancy.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Moore said the government was pleased with the overall outcome, but the defense hailed the verdict as a vindication of the doctors.

Defense counsel Dan Rapaport noted that the jury found for the defense on five of six counts, including all three counts involving Smith-McLaren.

“She was the patient,” Rapaport said, “and the major thrust of the claims by both the government and the McLarens’ lawyer was that she was the one who was discriminated against by the doctors. And the jury rejected that on every count.”

Lawyers for both sides admitted to being at least somewhat confused at the jury’s decision to absolve the practice of wrongdoing against Smith-McLaren while upholding a claim by her husband.

The family’s lawyer, Dierdre Smith, suggested that jurors may have been swayed by the defense’s contention that Smith-McLaren had waived her right to an interpreter during one visit to the practice.

Neither side ruled out an appeal.

During the trial, McLaren testified that he had difficulty understanding the obstetricians and that he repeatedly asked that they provide him and his wife with an interpreter, but the request was never granted.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed the civil lawsuit, alleging that Wagoner and Wright violated federal law requiring that doctors’ offices and other places of public accommodation ensure that their communications with the disabled be as effective as they are with anyone else.

To guarantee equal access, providers must make available auxiliary aids and services, which can often include a sign language interpreter when communicating with a deaf person over a long period of time or on a matter of importance, the government maintained.

Smith-McLaren’s pregnancy became complicated by gestational diabetes, which requires greater medical attention for the expectant mother and increases the need for effective communication, according to the government.

In August 1998, Smith-McLaren found an obstetrics practice in New Hampshire that delivered the baby and provided the couple with a sign language interpreter.

No interpreter was available during delivery, but the obstetrician and a family member knew some sign language and were able to communicate with Smith-McLaren, according to the family’s lawyer.

“The baby turned out fine,” Smith said, noting that the girl, Jaime, had just turned 2. “This was not a medical malpractice case. This was a civil rights case.”

Similar issues were raised in an earlier lawsuit in which Maine Medical Center was accused of failing to provide sign language interpreters and other aids to a deaf patient who had been in the hospital for more than three days.

That case ended in a settlement in which the Portland hospital agreed to improve services for people with impaired hearing.

Some health insurers are willing to pay for an interpreter, Moore said, but health care providers must bear the cost when that service is not covered by insurance.

Witnesses from the Maine Center on Deafness and the couple’s insurance company, Tufts Health Plan, testified that they repeatedly called York Women’s Care to advise its staff that the law required the practice to provide interpreters.

Moore said that in the couple’s case, the insurance was at least willing to pay the costs for a limited period.