In April 2025, a deaf man filed a disability discrimination federal lawsuit against the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services (DCFEMS) and two DC area hospitals for not providing plaintiff Ryan Barrett with an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter. Barrett alleges violations of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, the Affordable Care Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The lawsuit claims that the failure to provide ASL interpretation services to Barrett caused him to “suffer anxiety, depression, and a heightened distrust of healthcare settings.” Defendants deny the truth of Barrett’s allegations and ask the Court to dismiss the case against them.
According to Barrett’s Amended Complaint, he is asking the court to award him:
“Compensatory Damages in an amount to be proven at trial to compensate Plaintiff for emotional distress, pain and suffering, loss of autonomy, medical expenses, and other actual damages caused by Defendants’ unlawful conduct; Nominal Damages to recognize the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights under federal and District law.; and Punitive Damages to punish and deter Defendants’ deliberate indifference and willful misconduct;”
In August 2025, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. The motions, and Barrett’s objections to having the case dismissed, now await the Court’s decision.
In the lawsuit, Barrett alleges that the District of Columbia first responders and the hospitals they brought him to failed to provide effective communication to Barrett through the use of ASL interpretation.
In May 2024, plaintiff was experiencing anxiety and disorientation. Shortly after being contacted, DCFEMS arrived at Barrett’s home and began assessing his condition. DCFEMS records show that the first responders found Plaintiff rolling around on the ground outside his home.
According to the Amended Complaint, instead of attempting to communicate with Barrett, DCFEMS called the D.C. police for assistance. The lawsuit alleges that police officers restrained Barrett physically, “disregarding the possibility that Plaintiff’s behavior was due to a communication barrier and his inability to hear their commands.”
In addition, “none of the EMS personnel [at the scene] documented any effort to identify Plaintiff’s Deaf status, contact dispatch for ASL interpretation assistance, communicate in writing, or use any visual aids to facilitate basic communication.”
DCFEMS administered Versed to Barrett without explaining what drug they were using and obtaining informed consent. Versed (Midazolam) is mainly used as a sedative in clinical settings, commonly given to patients before surgeries, dental work, or other medical procedures to induce sedation and reduce anxiety.
DCFEMS transported Plaintiff to the George Washington University Hospital Emergency Department where the hospital’s intake records incorrectly labeled him as “hard of hearing” and listed “EMAIL” as his preferred communication method, an inexplicable choice for an emergency context and a clear indication of GW Hospital’s failure to properly assess his needs,” the lawsuit alleges.
That evening at GW Hospital, hospital staff administered four powerful medications to Plaintiff, “without any documented effort to obtain informed consent through an effective means of communication.” After providing the medications to plaintiff, hospital staff attached four-point hard locking [physical] restraints to all of Barrett’s extremities.
Early the next morning (May 2, 2024), as recounted in the Amended Complaint:
“GW Hospital initiated involuntary commitment proceedings (FD-12) without any meaningful communication to Plaintiff regarding the legal basis for this action, his right to challenge it, or the process of involuntary commitment. No qualified interpreter was provided to explain these critical legal matters, depriving Plaintiff of his due process rights.
By the morning of May 2, ED physician notes indicated that Plaintiff was awake, alert, and oriented, with “forward thinking” and appropriate concerns about his service dog’s care, which underscores that Plaintiff was not experiencing a psychotic break but rather suffering from inadequate communication access.
From 8:00 AM to 3:40 PM on May 2, multiple psychiatric evaluations were conducted with no qualified interpreter, leading hospital staff to misinterpret Plaintiff’s confusion as evidence of a severe mental illness rather than recognizing it as a predictable result of a communication barrier.
At approximately 7:49 PM on May 2, GW Hospital transferred Plaintiff to the Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW) against his expressed wishes, without explaining the reason for transfer, identifying the destination facility in a comprehensible manner, or providing any interpreter to enable Plaintiff to discuss his concerns.
Upon arrival at PIW, staff recorded Plaintiff’s Deaf status yet failed to secure qualified ASL interpretation services throughout his four-day involuntary detention from May 2 to May 6, 2024. This constitutes a blatant disregard for Plaintiff’s clearly established need for communication access.
In place of proper interpretation, PIW staff attempted lip-reading, basic gestures, written notes, and speaking loudly, none of which were effective for the complex discussions needed to evaluate Plaintiff’s psychiatric status and treatment plan. These attempts were not only inadequate but also demeaning and further isolated Plaintiff.”
There is no indication that Barrett understood and could communicate effectively in Spoken English, could read written English, and communicate effectively through lip-reading.
“Staff made treatment decisions without ever obtaining Plaintiff’s informed consent through accessible communication and conducted psychiatric evaluations that were fundamentally flawed because Plaintiff could not understand the questions being asked.
PIW staff announced facility activities, treatment schedules, and crucial information exclusively through a public address system, leaving Plaintiff excluded from meaningful participation in therapeutic programs. He was also unable to communicate with his family for the entirety of his detention because his phone was taken from him on May 1st and not returned until May 6th, 2024.”
This case is still in its early stages on the Court’s docket. Both sides are waiting for the Court to decide defendants’ motions to dismiss. However, even if defendants win their motions, the case will remain alive.
Defendants are asking the Court to dismiss “(1) Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages, including Plaintiff’s [request for money damages as compensation for] “emotional pain,” “mental anguish,” and any other type of emotional harm alleged; Plaintiff’s claim for expectation damages; and (3) Plaintiff’s request that the Court issue an injunction, ordering defendants to prevent further disability discrimination against him. Barrett asks the Court to order defendants “to modify their policies, provide adequate training to staff, maintain contracts with qualified ASL interpreters, and acquire functional VRI equipment to prevent future discrimination against deaf or hard-of-hearing patients.”
The District of Columbia federal district Court has had the motions to dismiss and supporting materials since the end of August, about one month ago. Depending upon the resolution of the motions to dismiss, this case will stay on the Court’s docket unless the parties agree to a settlement.
© Bruce L. Adelson 2025 All Rights Reserved The material herein is educational and informational only. No legal advice is intended or conveyed.
Bruce L. Adelson, Esq., is nationally recognized for his compliance expertise. Mr. Adelson is a former U.S Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Senior Trial Attorney. Mr. Adelson is a faculty member at the Georgetown University School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh School of Law where he teaches organizational culture, implicit bias, cultural and civil rights awareness.
Mr. Adelson’s blogs are a Bromberg exclusive.