## Facts

- Shirley Mayberry, a 67-year-old deaf patient, received family medical care from Dr. Cheryl C. Von Valtier beginning in 1987.
- During visits, communication occurred through written notes, lipreading (until Mayberry’s hearing worsened), and occasional use of sign-language interpreters, sometimes provided by Mayberry’s children.
- In March 1991, Mayberry’s daughter informed Von Valtier that Mayberry’s hearing had worsened; Von Valtier noted in the chart that a misunderstanding about the location of Mayberry’s back pain was “probably due to poor communication.”
- On three occasions, a professional interpreter was used; for at least two, Mayberry was not charged, and in December 1992 the practice agreed to pay for an interpreter “in compliance with the ADA.”
- On January 7, 1993, Von Valtier sent a letter to an interpreter (copied to Mayberry) complaining about interpreter costs and stating she could not “afford to take care of” Mayberry given the effect on profitability.
- Mayberry read the letter as indicating (1) future interpreter services would not be provided and (2) she was being discharged as a patient because of her deafness.
- Von Valtier denied discharging Mayberry or refusing interpreters, characterizing the letter as a poorly drafted protest about the ADA.
- Mayberry sued seeking injunctive relief and other remedies under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act.

## Issues

1. Whether disputed facts existed as to whether the physician refused to provide interpreter services and/or terminated the physician-patient relationship because of Mayberry’s deafness, in violation of Title III of the ADA.
2. Whether the same disputed facts precluded summary judgment on the § 504 Rehabilitation Act claim.
3. Whether the evidence created triable issues under the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act.
4. Whether Mayberry’s requests for injunctive and equitable relief could proceed past summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied Von Valtier’s motion for summary judgment in full.
- The court held that the January 7, 1993 letter and surrounding circumstances created genuine disputes of material fact about whether Mayberry was denied interpreter services and/or discharged because of her disability.
- Because the core factual dispute turned on competing interpretations, intent, and credibility, the claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Michigan law were for the fact-finder to resolve.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where the record permits competing reasonable inferences on material facts, particularly when intent and credibility are central.
- Title III of the ADA applies to medical providers as places of public accommodation and can require auxiliary aids (including qualified interpreters) when needed for effective communication, subject to defenses such as undue burden or fundamental alteration.
- § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability-based discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance; disputed facts concerning denial of meaningful access or disability-based termination defeat summary judgment.
- State public-accommodation disability statutes can be violated by disability-based denial of services or exclusion; where motivation and effect are disputed, summary judgment is inappropriate.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the patient’s federal and state disability-discrimination claims to proceed because the evidence—especially the physician’s letter and prior communication difficulties—could support a finding that interpreter services and continued treatment were withheld due to the patient’s deafness, and those factual questions could not be resolved on summary judgment.


Mayberry v. Von Valtier, 843 F. Supp. 1160 (E.D. Mich. 1994)