[blindlaw] service of process and reasonable accomodations

Mike Gilmore m_b_gilmore at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 21 13:20:12 UTC 2008


This question is for Virginia lawyers--but people from other jurisdictions feel free to chime in.
 
I was watching ER last night (yes, I'm one of those people who still watch it regularly after all these years. You know, you start it at the beginning and you gotta see how it ends.) Anyway, Dr. Raskotra was served and is being sued for medical malpractice. All of a sudden, a light went off in my head.
 
As lawyers, I'm sure some of you have been served because of your clients or in general (e.g., divorce, whatever.) Has anyone ever thought of using as a basis for improper service that you weren't served in an alternate format (i.e., braille) and as such, your right to reasonable accomodation under the ADA has been violated? Granted, Virginia law doesn't allow this as a basis upon which to raise improper service (and I'm sure other jurisdictions don't as well.) But, who's to say we can't use this as a basis? I mean, if the ACB can raise a lawsuit for braille money, what's to stop us from asserting this as a ground in the service of process phase? Concededly, federal civil procedure doesn't allow for this ground either; but, think about it. We are handed a document and how many of us have a scanner or SARA sitting in our briefcase to scan the document? Sure, some of us may have a sighted assistant who can say, "It's a complaint by John Doe", but what
 about those lawyers who don't have sighted assistants?
 
Of course, the other side to the argument is, "Well, someone comes up to you and says you've been served, it's logical that you being an attorney would realize what the document is. People just don't walk up to others and say, "Congratulations! You've been served!""
 
Just something to ponder. I'd love to hear opinions and thoughts. Keep in mind, I'm not saying we should assert this as a ground for improper service; we must obey the statues and rules of civil procedure in the federal and state jurisdictions. It's just something to chew on.
 
Mike  


      


More information about the BlindLaw mailing list