Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (2022)
- Sam Shepherd
- Nov 18, 2024
- 4 min read
By Nicole Tursellino
Overview
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___ (2022) involved the case of Jane Cummings, who was denied an American Sign Language by the physical therapy provider Premier Rehab. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found that emotional distress damages are not considered to be recoverable under the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This case helped answer the question of whether or not Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent statutes included compensatory damages for emotional distress.
Summary
Jane Cummings was a deaf and blind individual who sought to obtain physical therapy services from Premier Rehab in 2016. Upon requesting these services, she asked if she could be provided an American Sign Language interpreter with her at each session; however, Premier Rehab denied Cummings of these services. Instead, they provided Jane with alternative options that she could use while at the sessions, such as writing down on paper what she wished to communicate, gesturing her thoughts, or finding and bringing in her own American Sign Language interpreter with her to the physical therapy sessions. After being denied this service by the company, Cummings sued them for discrimination because of her disabilities under the following: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Affordable Care Act of 2010; and Texas Human Resources Code § 121.003. She was able to file suit under these acts because Premier Rehab received federal funding via Medicare and Medicaid.
When the case entered district court, the court found that the only damages that had been received by Cummings were emotional in nature rather than physical, and thus, dismissed the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision made in the district court and also filed a motion to dismiss the case. When the case reached the Supreme Court’s docket, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision with the majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts that damages of emotional distress are not “recoverable in a private action to enforce the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act.”
In the explanation of the case's ruling, Chief Justice Roberts explained that anti-discrimination statutes surrounding federal issues that are tied into the Spending Clause of the Constitution are essentially treated as contracts. These contracts exist between the funding recipients, in this case Premier Rehab, and the federal government. The funding recipients must be aware of the provided remedies that come with receiving federal funding, and emotional damages are not considered to be a traditional remedy that Congress intended to authorize under the statutes. These damages are not usually available under contract law, and thus since emotional damages are considered to be implied and not forthrightly written down, the remedies provided under the statutes of the law are unclear.
Impact
The ruling obtained in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___ (2022 removed emotional damages and emotional distress as a remedy under statutes tied with the Spending Clause, such as the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. With the deterrence of emotional distress, a common form of harm for individuals that have disabilities, many handicapped individuals now must face these challenges knowing that federally-funded companies are not required to provide assistance for things that may be emotionally harming. Disabled individuals can now not claim emotional distress as a form of discrimination. As many individuals with disabilities claim emotional damages when filing suit against organizations or companies for discriminatory actions rather than filing suit for financial actions taken against them, this may deter these individuals from doing so under the Rehabilitation Act or the Affordable Care Act. For any cases that included the loss of money and emotional damages, disabled individuals may only file suit for the monterey costs and cannot file suit for the emotional hardships caused. This case can also set a precedent that limits emotional distress damages, and it can be harmful to those that are more susceptible to psychological or emotional stress than others. This shows that this case impacts individuals outside of the disabled community as well, such as members of minority racial and gender groups that are often facing emotional harm caused by discriminatory actions against them.
Additional Documents
To listen to the Oral Argument made on November 30, 2021, click here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-219
To read the Opinions and Dissents made, click here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-219/#tab-opinion-4574681
To read more about the Rehabilitation Act, click here: https://askearn.org/page/the-rehabilitation-act-of-1973-rehab-act
To learn more about the Affordable Care Act, click here: https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html
To learn more about the Americans with Disabilities Act of 2010, click here:
To read more about Texas Human Resources Code § 121.003, click here: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/hr/htm/hr.121.htm
To learn more about Medicare and Medicaid, click here: https://www.hhs.gov/answers/medicare-and-medicaid/what-is-the-difference-between-medicare-medicaid/index.html
To learn more about the Spending Clause of the Constitution, click here: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-2-1/ALDE_00013356/#:~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%208%2C%20Clause,the%20United%20States%3B%20.%20.%20.
To read Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, click here: https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI
Citations
ADA. “2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.” ADA.gov, 15 Sept. 2010, www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/design-standards/2010-stds/.
“Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.” Oyez, 2021, www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-219.
“Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___ (2022).” Justia Law, 2022, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-219/#tab-opinion-4574681. Accessed 18 Nov. 2024.
“Human Resources Code Chapter 121. Participation in Social and Economic Activities.” Statutes.capitol.texas.gov, statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HR/htm/HR.121.htm.
“Overview of the Spending Clause .” Constitution.congress.gov, Library of Congress, constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-2-1/ALDE_00013356/.
“Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act).” Askearn.org, askearn.org/page/the-rehabilitation-act-of-1973-rehab-act.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “About the Affordable Care Act.” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 17 Mar. 2022, www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html.
“What Is the Difference between Medicare and Medicaid?” HHS.gov, 8 Dec. 2022, www.hhs.gov/answers/medicare-and-medicaid/what-is-the-difference-between-medicare-medicaid/index.html.
U.S. Department of Justice. “Title vi of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Justice.gov, 18 Mar. 2019, www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI.
