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.