May 24, 2012

St. Mercy Medical Center settles violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), St. Edward Mercy Medical Center (Mercy), in Fort Smith, Arkansas has agreed to make changes to its policies and procedures to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504).

The settlement resulted from a complaint filed with OCR by a person with a lumbar and spinal disability who requires a service animal to assist him in a number of daily functions, including carrying and picking up items and helping to stabilize his walking. While the complainant sought emergency medical treatment for his father, Mercy refused to allow the service animal to accompany the complainant into the hospital. The complainant was told his service animal was not a “seeing eye dog” and the animal would need to be removed from the hospital because he could not show vaccination records or tags verifying the health of the animal. After an investigation, OCR found that Mercy’s policies and procedures regarding access to service animals inappropriately excluded service animals already being used by qualified individuals with disabilities other than vision impairment.

“Service animals are used by people with disabilities for various purposes and this action sends a strong reminder to facilities to ensure that people with service animals have an equal opportunity to participate in their programs and services,” said OCR Director Leon Rodriguez.  “HHS is committed to continuing its strong enforcement of Section 504 and ensuring access to health care for all Americans.”

Under Section 504, a covered entity may not limit access to only those service animals used by persons who are blind or have low vision. A covered entity may also not deny access to a service animal based on an individual’s failure to produce a tag or other documentation demonstrating that the animal is a service animal or what tasks the service animal performs, or a veterinarian’s health certificate or other documentation of the service animal’s health.   

Among the terms of the settlement agreement, Mercy will establish non-discrimination policies, provide notice to its staff and program participants of such policies, and ensure staff receives comprehensive training on their obligations to provide services without discrimination to qualified persons with disabilities and specific training on permitting service animals into its facility in accordance with Section 504.

People who believe that an entity receiving federal financial assistance has discriminated against them (or someone else) on the basis of disability, may file a complaint with OCR at:  http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/complaints. A copy of the Settlement Agreement in this matter, along with more information about OCR’s efforts to enforce Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 can be found at www.hhs.gov/ocr.

© Copyright 2012 U.S. Department of Human & Health Services

About the Author

The Department of Health and Human Services is the principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans. It is comprised of the Office of the Secretary and 11 operating divisions. The agencies perform a wide variety of tasks and services, including research, public health, food and drug safety, grants and other funding, health insurance, and many others.

877-696-6775

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.