It is a violation of both ADA and TJC to not offer onsite AND/OR online interpreting services. Video Remote Interpreting or VRI, must not be used in lieu of an on-site interpreter, or as the only accommodation available for Deaf or hard of hearing individuals’ communication needs. The preference of the deaf person *must* be honored.
- Settlement Agreement between Fox and Trinity Regional Medical Center & Trinity Health Systems: Deaf/HH patients have right to choose between online or onsite interpreting services (section 3 “Provision of Interpreter”).
- USA vs. Inova Health System: Defines VRI and on-site interpreter usage, and provides guidance on the importance of patient choice between the two.
- USA vs. Dimensions Health Corp dba Laurel Regional Hospital: VRI usage and when technology fails to provide appropriate services.
- National Association of the Deaf (NAD) recommended usages for VRI
- Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) VRI position paper
- Judicial Council of California, recommended guidelines for VRI use in the courtroom
- All Language Alliance article, VRI services
- Gallaudet University Video Interpreting Repository. A collection of articles, discussion, material and media dealing with VRI services.