Cited Article

The Use of Interpreters for the Deaf and the Legal Community's Obligation to Comply with the A.D.A.

Authors

Jo Anne Simon

Case Citation

Strook v. Kedinger, 316 Wis.2d 548, 766 N.W.2d 219, 230 (2009)

Background

Property owner brought action against neighbor, alleging trespass. Neighbor, with an alleged hearing impairment, filed cross-and counterclaims, a motion to dismiss, an indigency petition, and a motion for sign language interpreter.

Citing Quote

"In coming to its apparent conclusion that it would have conducted the hearing without the need for an interpreter, some assumptions were made by the circuit court that this court finds troubling. For example, the court thought Kedinger could probably ‘lip read.’ Our initial problem with this is that the record is devoid of any support for this conclusion, other than assumption and hearsay. But more importantly, the court's statement shows that the circuit court is misinformed about the value of ‘lipreading.’ As one commentator wrote, the ability to lip read is more a function of myth than fact. See Jo Anne Simon, The Use of Interpreters for the Deaf and the Legal Community's Obligation to Comply with the A.D.A., 8 J.L. & Health 155, 175-76 (1994). While many deaf people can lip read to some extent, only 25% to 40% of the English language is visible on the lips in the best of conditions. Id. at 176. It is seldom sufficient in and of itself. Id.”

Article Publication Date

1994

Volume

8