- 12 - The ADA does not elaborate further with respect to the aforementioned categories of auxiliary aids and services. Rather, the final regulations implementing the ADA provide only examples of auxiliary aids and services in the areas of hearing and visual impairments. See 28 C.F.R. sec. 36.303(b) (2000); see also Fan v. Commissioner, supra. Absent in these regulations is any mention of x-ray machines, much less dental x-ray machines. Petitioner contends that his purchase of the panoramic and Wehmer x-ray machines and rare earth cassette enabled his dental services business to comply with applicable requirements of the ADA and that the cost of the x-ray machines and cassette therefore qualifies as “eligible access expenditures”. We disagree. Initially, we note that petitioner was already in compliance with the ADA at the time that he purchased the panoramic and Wehmer x-ray machines. Petitioner did not discriminate against, or refuse to treat, disabled patients “on the basis of disability”. 42 U.S.C. sec. 12182(a). Nor did petitioner fail to take necessary steps to ensure that no individual with a disability was denied services because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services. See 42 U.S.C. sec. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Prior to petitioner’s purchase of the panoramic and Wehmer x-ray machines, none of petitioner’s disabled patients had everPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011