- 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 ever
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011