- 10 -
with his hearing-impaired patients through the use of handwritten
notes, which is an acceptable “auxiliary aid” or service under
the ADA.
More importantly, the system is not a replacement for, or
acceptable alternative to, handwritten notes for purposes of the
section 44 credit. The system itself was not designed or
marketed as a communication device for hearing-impaired
individuals, and petitioner did not limit the use of the system
to his hearing-impaired patients. We accept his claim that, by
permitting a patient to view a video image of a particular dental
condition, the system might have allowed a patient to better
understand the nature of his or her dental condition and the
recommended treatment, but it does not eliminate the need for the
dentist and the patient to communicate with each other. See 28
C.F.R. sec. 36.303, Appendix B (2000) (noting that communications
involving areas such as health, legal matters, and finances may
require the use of notes or interpreters, or an effective
alternative such as the use of a computer terminal upon which the
customer can exchange typewritten messages). As a result, we
fail to see how the system constitutes an effective method “of
making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with
hearing impairments”. 42 U.S.C. sec. 12102(1)(A); see also sec.
44(c)(2)(B); 28 C.F.R. sec. 36.303(b)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011