Mayberry v. Von Valtier

Dr. Cheryl Von Valtier (defendant) was the family physician for Shirley Mayberry (plaintiff), a 67-year-old deaf patient. Von Valtier and Mayberry communicated through written notes or a sign-language interpreter during Mayberry’s appointments. For several appointments, Mayberry had access to an interpreter at no cost to Von Valtier, but Von Valtier’s office paid for an interpreter on one occasion in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Following this appointment, Von Valtier sent a letter to the interpreter and to Mayberry stating that Von Valtier’s office would no longer be able to use the interpreter’s services or to afford to care for Mayberry. The letter detailed the costs of Mayberry’s visits and explained Von Valtier’s belief that the interpreter’s services unfairly cut into her profits for the appointments. Mayberry interpreted the letter as stating that Von Valtier (1) would not provide future interpreters and (2) was discharging Mayberry as a patient. Mayberry filed suit in federal district court, claiming that Von Valtier’s refusal to pay for future interpreters and her discharge of Mayberry as a patient constituted discrimination under Title III of the ADA. Von Valtier denied the claim and stated in her deposition that her letter was a poorly written protest of the ADA and not a formal discharge of Mayberry or a refusal to pay for future interpreters. Von Valtier moved for summary judgment.