PHILADELPHIA - A district court has granted a motion for summary judgment to Abington Memorial Hospital after the daughter of a patient accused the hospital of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
On Jan. 22, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment in a suit involving Meredith Gill, who alleged the hospital violated the ADA when it refused to allow her to visit her mother in a common area of the hospital's Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) with her service dog.
The hospital contends that Gill lacks standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA.
Judge Anita Brody
"While Gill may be concerned that she might be prevented from visiting the hospital with her service dog, '[i]t is the reality of the threat of repeated injury that is relevant to the standing inquiry, not the plaintiff’s subjective apprehensions,'" Judge Anita Brody wrote.
Gill, a quadriplegic, uses a motorized powered wheelchair to move around. She also has a service dog who assists her.
According to the hospital, the BHU is "an adult psychiatric inpatient unit, which provides comprehensive assessment, short-term intensive psychiatric treatment, medical management, and discharge planning services to adults and their family members.” Because of the patient population, “the BHU is a ‘secure’ facility with more restricted access than other areas of the hospital," according to court documents.
Gill's mother was admitted to the BHU in May 2017, court papers said.
According to Gill, she notified the social worker for the hospital during a conference call in reference to her mother that she used a wheelchair and had a service dog. She claims that the social worker told her that she would be able to visit the facility.
However, after the BHU was notified of Gill's visit with the service dog, officials there determined the dog would not be permitted. According to court documents, hospital officials were "concerned about how particular BHU patients might adversely react to the service dog."
The hospital "does not have a blanket policy on whether a service dog may be permitted in the common areas of the BHU."
Gill brought suit against the hospital, claiming that it violated the ADA under Title III.
"Because she expresses no intent to return to the BHU, Gill has not made the required 'showing of any real or immediate threat that [she] will be wronged again,' by the hospital’s refusal to permit her to visit in the common areas of the BHU with her service dog," Brody wrote.
"Even if Gill’s intent to return to the hospital could be construed as an intent to return to the BHU, Gill cannot establish standing because she only expresses an intent to return to the hospital at an indefinite time in the future."