Saturday, April 05, 2008
Deaf People Win Bigger Without National Association Of The Deaf's Assistance!
This blog is in response to the two blog posts announcing the $175,000 settlement for failing to provide interpreter. This is a case where a technical college didn't provide interpreter. Basicaly its a 'lack of interpreter' type of case.
limelight-training.com
jimspoliticalthoughts.blogspot.com
The story;
School pays deaf man $175,000 settlement
Remember this videoblog post below when I complained that NAD's cheapening us with a $7,500 settlement for a similar lack of interpreter case?
The thunderous message from this fact finding post is;
Deaf People Win Bigger Without National Association Of The Deaf's Assistance!
Richard
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your point is being what?
ReplyDeleteThe lawsuits had been occurred in New Jersey without NAD's help, people had gotten money -- They had been doing for years. It is not new!
I think your comment is moot.
NAD do help other people *winning* the case! Big or small. BUT, the principle is that they *WIN* the arguement.
You are stupidf#$k#r.
Your comment seem confused me.. I dont like your attuide and like to twisted everyone.
ReplyDeleteWow! What a luxurious living room
ReplyDeleteyou have!
Exxxxxxpenive painting!
Exxxxxxpensive sofa!
Exxxxxxpensive curtains!
You must be rrrrrriiiiiccccch!
Poor NAD!
Challange you to post my comments .... First of all, you need to understand no two law cases are the same. Secondly, the time factor, when did this take place. When you mentioned your complaint about NAD, you never stated when and where this took place. New Jersey is much more expensive than other states, of course, the amount of the law suit would be higher.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you can not compare the two cases, whether NAD was involved or not.
Wow! I got a bunch of prismy ad-homenum attacks. Their language is too colorful for publishing because this site is a training point for deaf kids yearning to be advocates.
ReplyDeleteA $7,500 settlement means they didn't do any work and $175,000 means they did the the work.
Again we see the painful truth exposed and again, as predictable, desperation takes over the thinking mechanisms!
Richard
Since the New Jersey case involved a school, the plaintiff could collect damages. The NAD case, however, was against a doctor. Under the ADA, you cannot get money against a doctor.
ReplyDeleteRichard,
ReplyDeleteYou made me laugh because you're right that they did nothing to win $7,500 and they did something (including some upfront fees for their lawyers) to win a large sum of money in six figures.
Seriously, this is the second time I asked but never got your answer to my first question: the name of the tool and how much it cost you to buy from Univ of Michigan (???) to make captions in your vlog. I want that tool.
Thank you, Richard
A lot of people need to be re-trained on the ADA!
ReplyDeleteThey can start at this URL.
http://olrs.ohio.gov/asp/olrs_FAQ_SignLang.asp#damages
Richard
Richard:
ReplyDeleteThe link confirms the commenter's point that you cannot recover damages against doctors under the ADA.
Although it is possible to recover damages against a doctor under a different federal law called section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiffs must establish certain facts to recover damages.
First, plaintiffs must establish that the defendant receives money from the federal government. Some doctors do. Some don't.
Second, plaintiffs must establish that the defendant has 15 or more employees. Some doctors' offices do. Some don't.
There are other requirements that must be established, such as a showing that the defendant intentionally discriminated.
So while it is possible to win money from a doctor under section 504, this is not always possible. It depends on the facts of the case.
The point is that you can't make these sweeping judgments about how much a case is "worth" without knowing more about the facts of the case.
Richard, I challenge you to post this comment. If you don't, I will know that you are chicken and afraid to own up when you might be wrong.