Krist v. Beth Isr. Med. Ctr.

1

CHERYL KRIST, Plaintiff, v. BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER, et al. Defendants.

No. 17-CV-01312 (PAC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 28, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Cheryl Krist ("Plaintiff) brings this action against Mount Sinai Beth Israel ("MSBI") and Mount Sinai Hospital ("MSH," and together with MSBI "Defendants") for unlawful discrimination on the basis of her disability. Seeking both injunctive and monetary relief, she asserts causes of action based on Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Rehabilitation Act") New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL").

Defendants move for summary judgment on all counts. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.

BACKGROUND

a. Factual Background

Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed.^[1] Defendants are two member hospitals of the Mount Sinai Health System. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 86. Plaintiff suffers from several progressive neurological and orthopedic conditions for which she seeks treatment at Defendants' facilities. PI. Depo. Tr. 23, ECF No. 96-1; J. Krist Depo. Tr. 47, ECF No. 96-2. Since 2008, she has been assisted by a service dog who accompanies Plaintiff to medical appointments and aids her with a variety of other tasks. PL Depo. Tr. 23, 26. Both animals that have served in this capacity-first Bocci, who passed away in or around 2017, and then Beau-have been properly trained and registered with the United States Service Dog Registry and Service Dog Registration of America. Id. at 26, 28-29. When visiting Defendants' facilities, Plaintiffs service dog wears a service jacket and tags reflecting these registrations. Id. At 27, 30. Plaintiffs husband, Joseph Krist, also accompanies her to many health appointments. Id. at 41.

For their part, MSBI and MSH have adopted nearly identical written policies that prohibit discrimination based a patient's use of a service animal. In relevant part, these policies read:

Individuals with disabilities accompanied by service animals shall be allowed in all areas of the [facility]. .. .

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask if the dog is a service animal required because of a disability and what work or task the dog has been trained to perform... .

Staff may not ask about the person's disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the [animal], or ask that the [animal] demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task... .

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless (a) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it within a reasonable amount of time or (b) the dog is not housebroken... .

In the event someone in the area of the service animal has asthma, allergies to the animal, or a phobia about animals, the [facility] shall modify its policies, practices, and procedures to permit a service animal to remain with a patient by, for example, moving the patient to another comparable room, changing staff schedules, or using other nondiscriminatory methods.. ..

[The facility] shall instruct and train all medical personnel and staff, including security personnel, on die provisions of this policy upon hire and annually.

MSBI Policy No. 2024G, ECF No. 101-2; MSH Policy 7.12, ECF No. 102-1.^[2] Pursuant to its Assisted Pet Therapy Program, which allows volunteers to bring pets into the facility, MSBI has enacted an additional policy. Resnick Depo. Tr. 62-63, ECF No. 135-1. MSBI Policy 203, which is not shared by MSH, provides:

Persons attempting to enter the hospital premises with animals must be questioned as to their business in the hospital. Once it has been determined that their visit is appropriate, and authorized according to hospital policy, they are to be asked if their animal is a pet. If they claim the animal is a service animal, they are to be allowed to enter without having to identify their disability or provide proof that the animal is a service animal. ...

Persons and animals that are a part of the hospital Assisted Pet Therapy Program, will be authorized by the Volunteer Department, who will arrange for hospital ID.

MSBI Policy 203, ECF No. 101-1. Defendants train their staff regarding these policies. This training begins during new employees' on boarding, and typically continues at least annually throughout each employees' tenure. Rubinstein Depo. Tr. 25-26, 46-47, ECF No. 116-4. During the pendency of this action, Defendants have taken additional steps to update and enhance their training procedures. Id. at 59-63; Arenas Depo. Tr. 41-43, ECF No. 98-2.

MSBI and MSH patients who wish to file complaints may avail themselves of Defendants' grievance processes, which is overseen by Mount Sinai's centralized Patient Service Center. Rubenstein Depo. Tr. 52-53. Patients are apprised of this option in several ways, including written notice, signs posted at Defendants' facilities, and resources available online. Id. At 82-83.

b. Plaintiffs' Medical Visits

Plaintiffs lawsuit stems from a series of visits to Defendants' facilities in which she claims she was discriminated against due to her use of a service dog.

First, on April 15, 2016, Plaintiff sought treatment for migraine headaches from Dr. Huma Sheikh, a neurologist at MSB! Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement ("Defs. 56.1") ¶ 27, ECF No. 137. This was the first and only time Plaintiff visited Dr. Sheikh; Plaintiffs regular neurologist was unavailable and asked Dr. Sheikh to provide an opinion on Plaintiffs condition and prospective treatment options. Pl Depo. Tr. 63; Sheikh Depo. Tr. 33-34. Plaintiff ultimately disagreed with Dr. Sheikh's opinion that Plaintiffs excessive use of daily pain medication was contributing to her migraine issues, as well as Dr. Sheikh's treatment recommendations and neurological testing practices. Defs. 56.1 at ¶ 36. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not return to Dr. Sheikh after this visit; she now sees a neurologist associated with a different hospital group. PI. Depo. Tr. 24.

The parties dispute whether Plaintiff was allowed to bring her service dog into the treatment room during her visit with Dr, Sheikh. Plaintiff and Mr, Krist have each testified that Dr. Sheikh refused to see Plaintiff unless the dog remained in the waiting room with Mr. Krist. PI. Depo. Tr. at 22-24; J. Krist Depo. Tr. at 49-50. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Sheikh stated, "I'm allergic." PL Depo. Tr. at 54-55. Dr. Sheikh claims the service dog was, in fact, present throughout the visit. Sheikh Depo. Tr. 57-59. Further, her undisputed testimony indicates that she treats about four patients with service animals each year, that she asks no questions of these patients regarding their service animals, that she is not allergic to dogs, and that she has never^[3] declined to treat a patient accompanied by a service animal, nor requested a service animal's removal. Defs. 56.1 at ¶¶ 32, 40.

Plaintiff has testified that after her visit with Dr. Sheikh, she attempted without success to call and then to text message a number for a cell phone or landline she believed belonged to MSBI's head of neurology. PL Depo. Tr. 83-87. She also claims to have spoken in-person with another doctor concerning her visit with Dr. Sheikh, but her account of that conversation includes no service animal discussion. Id. at 87. Plaintiff does not claim that she ever complained of service animal discrimination directly to Dr. Sheikh.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff, accompanied by her husband and service dog, visited the Emergency Room at MSH after injuring her knee in a fall at her home. PI. Depo. Tr. 90-91. Upon arrival, MSH security guards asked Plaintiff to wait for at least five minutes in the entrance with her service dog before placing her in a wheelchair and bringing her into the facility. Id. at 63; J. Krist Depo. Tr. 22. Plaintiff has further testified that "[t]he security guard wanted me to tie the dog out to the tree outside." PL Depo, Tr. 66. Once inside, she claims an unidentified triage nurse told her to "keep that thing away from me" and another staff member wearing scrubs remarked that "you don't really need that dog because you're not blind." Id. at 63-64. She recalls hospital staff moving her within the facility multiple times "because I was in the way and nobody wanted to have the dog anywhere near them." Id. at 93. At one point, Mr. Krist took the service dog outside to relieve itself and one of the security guards now on duty initially "didn't want to let [Mr. Krist] bring [the dog] back in." Id. Plaintiff recalls complaining in the moment to MCH staff about how she was being treated. Id. at 101. Apart from her time in the x-ray room-where, for safety reasons, service animals are not allowed-Plaintiff was permitted to keep her service dog with her at all times. J. Krist Depo. Tr. 25-26. All told, hospital records indicate the visit lasted just under three hours and that Plaintiff was treated 30 minutes after seeing the triage nurse upon her arrival inside the Emergency Room. PI. Depo. Tr. 95-96. Plaintiff has testified that "they wanted me out of there so fast." Id. at 102.

The following year, on October 4, 2017, Plaintiff visited Dr Susan Boolbol at one of Defendants' facilities to have...