“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
Let me open by stating as clearly as possible I’m a fan of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It has made a profound difference in easing hardships for millions of Americans. So, the Act is useful.
Still, tools that are used can also be abused.
We’ve written before (here and here) about “patients” abusing the ADA to seek cash remedies from physicians whose websites were “not compliant.”
First, there is no universal standard for ADA compliance for websites. Further, where you live determines how federal courts judge what is reasonable for a commercial website and what isn’t. And state law also plays a role.
In any event, over the past several years, webmasters have stepped up to make it easier for those with vision and hearing challenges to access content on commercial websites and make their experiences better and easier.
Widgets abound to simplify the task.
Webmasters can do a quick screen to identify where those with vision and hearing challenges will struggle.
Yet, the money grab continues.
Several Medical Justice members received this recent letter.
I am writing to you in regards to your website xxx.com and its lack of ADA compliance. Your website is in violation of Section 508 Standards & W3C WCAG 2.1. Under Federal law, your website must comply with the new requirements of the ADA and WCAG 2.1 AA (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines).
I am color blind and was unable to use your website to its full capacity. Your website has insufficient color contrast between text and background. On October 15th 2023 I attempted to use your website but your website’s Color contrast limitations prevented me from being able to use your business website properly. Your non compliant website prevented me from being able to get the proper cosmetic procedure I needed to fix my deviated septum that has caused me many breathing and health issues. Your website not being compliant has prevented me from receiving proper health care.
I had a consultation with a lawyer about this matter for which I was charged $1,190 for a two hour consultation. I am requesting that I be reimbursed for my legal fees by you and your business entity as I do not want to pursue this any further. If I am reimbursed for my legal fees and you make your website compliant in the next 180 days then I will stop my pursuit, If not then I will continue this pursuit. ADA Compliance widgets and plugins are not a substitute for a fully compliant website. I am in contact with another law firm that specializes in website compliance matters and we will sue you.
This is a very easy case to prove and the amount of money you will lose will be substantial. $10,000+ in Plaintiff law firm fees, $5,000+ in your defense attorney fees, and $20,000+ for accessibility audit and remediation.
Please send, made payable to me, certified funds in the amount of $1,190, to the address listed herein within seven (7) days of you receiving this correspondence. In exchange, I will release any and all claims related to this matter, and forgo any future reports, complaints or grievances to state or federal government agencies or authorities not yet made.
Well, what to do?
I recommend any physician receiving such a letter send it to his/her webmaster for consideration and feedback on the allegation. Meaning, based on the website at issue, is the person’s allegation even believable? If so, how can anyone comply?
There is no perfect answer in working to comport with ADA. Many webmasters place specific widgets on their sites. Some are more effective than others. This demonstrates the physician made an effort to get closer to an optimum outcome for the general public. But all widgets come with tradeoffs. Some actually interfere with devices patients own which allows them individually to hear and read websites. In other words, in trying to be all things to all people, one may inadvertently make it harder for specific individuals.
In the accusatory letters, the “plaintiff” spoke to a lawyer who charged by the hour. If that lawyer, or any lawyer, was thrilled about taking the case, the physician would have received the shakedown letter from an attorney.
The universe of challenges any individual patient may experience with a website is near infinite. There is no ideal solution. Congress or the agency that oversees enforcement of the ADA (Department of Justice) could and should specify what are minimum reasonable expectations for commercial websites. Safe harbors should be outlined. The guessing must stop.
The whole thing is enough to make you see red.
What do you think?
Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
The ADA us a terrible bill and never should have been passed. Look at all the obese people on scooters in the grocery store. or people borrowing the handicap placard who have no problems
I wish you would post the person’s name that wrote that letter so we can be on the lookout for it.
The scammer was:
Akhil Daniels
90 Hancock St
Brooklyn, NY 11216
Glidebuy.co@gmail.com
There are a few ways to look at this.
First, since the complainant did not have the attorney write that letter to the physician, and did not take the case on contingency, that attorney did not feel that the case had merit.
Second, the physician should simply take down the website, that the complainant mentioned and take out a different domain for a different website with different content, and can have the webmaster make out a new website. I’d rather pay the webmaster money, than pay an extortionist.
Third, once the website is gone, there is on more cause of action, since the offending site has been removed. No website, no ADA compliance issue.
Fourth, there must be proof that harm has been caused. There is no proof that this patient was harmed, for a rhinoplasty, as this is an elective case, and there is no indication that the compliance of a website or not would hinder a patient’s decision to have a rhinoplasty from this or any other physician.
Fifth, the idea that a website which is viewable in a browser from Apple, Microsoft or Google is inaccessible is nonsense since each of those browsers, or their operating systems, have software to accommodate disabled persons. As a result this complaint is simply harassment and extortion. The information regarding this is easily findable with a google search.
Sixth, those that are impaired, already have assistive devices to help their disability, which they can use on their different devices.
Seventh, the accessibility.com website indicates the following:
With the notable exception of legal action taken against religious organizations, the ADA allows for private lawsuits to be filed once complaints have been brought forward to the relevant federal agencies. However, who pursues a complaint and which federal agencies get involved depends on the nature of the complaint.
Since a complaint has not been filed with a federal agency, there is no basis for a suit to proceed.
Eight, after reviewing the different websites about which federal agency enforces what, regarding the ADA, it is very difficult to figure out which federal agency would enforce accessibility of a website. Arguably the website is that of a private physician, not a public corporation, bank, etc., and thus might not even fall under the ADA jurisdiction.
The best response under the circumstances may be to ignore this letter. Is this person even real, or is this just an extortion ring. That is important to consider, because if this same person is sending out such letters to multiple physicians then it could be considered that they are not even a real patient, not really interested in rhinoplasty surgery, and may not even have a deviated septum.
IF this was a real patient and showed up in the physicians office this complaint might have more legitimacy.
Additionally, the complainant (let’s not call them a patient), may not even be in the geographic area of the physician that received the letter.
Until proven otherwise this seems more like a scam rather than a real complaint. The legitimacy relative to the ADA seems very questionable.
I’d probably just reply with “please have your attorney contact me.” That would probably stop the train. No attorney, no more contact.
It’s far from obvious how being color blind affected someone’s ability to use a website in a way that would have led to a different outcome for a rhinoplasty. Was the recipient an ENT surgeon? Did he even do the alleged surgery?
I agree with the Horton approach. PLUS taking down/revising the site, JIC this is a legitimate accessibility complaint. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter whether the patient is local, or visited the office, or even has a medical condition other than color blindness.
A private physician’s office is a title III entity, a place of public accommodation, covered by the ADA. A suit can proceed without DOJ/HHS intervention.
I doubt many attorneys take ADA cases on contingency, because there are very few provisions for damages that would make it worth their while.
We received a letter just like this one. I called out the scammer and emailed him. I offered to explain whatever he couldn’t read on our website. No response. Additionally, our webmaster confirmed “93% compliance” with ADA, and we fell short with a few fonts that have been changed, and now we’re 100% compliant and it is visually impossible to tell the difference. I wonder how many letters were sent, and how many doctors complied with this fraud.
The scammer was:
Akhil Daniels
90 Hancock St
Brooklyn, NY 11216
Glidebuy.co@gmail.com