Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.
United States Supreme Court
596 U.S. , 142 S.Ct. 1562 (2022)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Jane Cummings (plaintiff) was a deaf and legally blind person who communicated primarily using American Sign Language (ASL). In 2016, Cummings sought physical-therapy treatment from Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. (Premier Rehab) (defendant), a small physical-therapy provider that received reimbursement for some services from the federal government through Medicare and Medicaid. Cummings asked Premier Rehab to provide an ASL interpreter during Cummings’s therapy sessions, but Premier Rehab refused and told Cummings to communicate with her physical therapist through notes, lip reading, or gestures. Cummings ultimately decided to seek treatment from another physical therapist. Cummings subsequently sued Premier Rehab in federal district court in Texas, asserting that Premier Rehab’s refusal to provide the ASL interpreter was disability discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The district court dismissed Cummings’s claim after finding that Cummings had suffered only emotional-distress damages (e.g., humiliation and frustration) from Premier Rehab’s refusal to provide the therapist. The district court stated that emotional-distress damages could not be recovered in private actions to enforce the Rehabilitation Act or the ACA. The appellate court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
Concurrence (Kavanaugh, J.)
Dissent (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.