Ervine v. Desert View Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 12-15059 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, individually and on behalf of his wife's estate, filed suit against Desert View and Dr. Tannoury, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794; and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Plaintiff alleged that his health care providers failed to communicate effectively with a person who is deaf. The district court granted in part and denied in part Dr. Tannoury's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that plaintiff has now shown a real and immediate threat that he will be denied effective communication by defendants either as a patient in his own right or as a companion to another patient. Because plaintiff's complaint is "jurisdictionally defective" and he has failed to introduce any evidence to cure the defect, he lacked standing to bring his ADA claims. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Because each and every discrete discriminatory act causes a new claim to accrue under Section 504, any discriminatory acts that Desert View or Dr. Tannoury took after September 1, 2008 are actionable. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in finding the claims under the Rehabilitation Act untimely. The court reversed the judgment of the district court as to the Rehabilitation Act claims and the state law claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Rehabilitation Act / Americans with Disabilities Act. The panel vacated in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment on claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act against health care providers for failure to communicate effectively with a person who was deaf. The panel held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims for injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because he did not show a real and immediate threat that he would be denied effective communication by the defendants, either as a patient in his own right or as a companion to another patient. The panel vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to these claims and remanded with instructions to dismiss them without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The panel held that the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiff’s claims under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, brought individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate, were untimely under Nevada’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries. The panel held that so long as an alleged violation of § 504 is a discrete and independently wrongful discriminatory act, it causes a new claim to accrue and a new limitations period to run. The panel reversed the ERVINE V. DESERT VIEW REG’L MED. CTR. HOLDINGS 3 district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to the Rehabilitation Act claims.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.