GOMEZ v. HEALTHSUN HEALTH PLANS, INC.

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Andres Gomez
    • Filing date: April 13, 2019
    • State of filing: Florida

    Defendant

    • Name: Healthsun Health Plans, Inc. is an HMO plan with a Medicare Contract selling health insurance plans to Florida residents.
    • Website: www.healthsun.com
    • Industry: Insurance
    • Summary: Healthsun Health Plans, Inc.

    Case Summary

    On April 13, 2019, Andres Gomez filed a Complaint in Florida Federal court against Healthsun Health Plans, Inc. is an HMO plan with a Medicare Contract selling health insurance plans to Florida residents.. Plaintiff Andres Gomez alleges that www.healthsun.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Defendant’s website did not contain an ADA button to adjust the website format to one that is fully readable through SRS.
    • Defendant’s website does not contain a statement of its ADA policy towards visually impaired patrons.
    • Defendant’s website does not provide adequate information if the brick and mortar location provides auxiliary Aid to assist visually impaired individuals inside the location.
    • Defendant’s website is missing image alternative texts. The defendant’s website did not provide accessible images for the Plaintiff while using the Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software.
    • Defendant’s website has a missing form label. Plaintiff was left feeling confused when using the Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader. The specific barrier is located right above the “ We are pleased to be your South Florida healthcare provider,” heading.
    • The defendant’s website has linked images missing alternative texts. Plaintiff was unable to determine the purpose of the links with missing alternative texts throughout the Website.
    • Defendant’s website contains an inaccessible link to a PDF document. Plaintiff used Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software when he was unsuccessful in opening PDF which read that The URL provided is an invalid file type. 
    • Defendant’s website contains a contrast error. This poor contrast created difficulty for Plaintiff in navigation of the Website. For instance, the color of the light yellow text that reads: Notice of Privacy Practices (PDF) to its light gray background was not an adequate ratio that did not allow the Plaintiff to distinguish words.

    Plaintiff asserts the following cause(s) of action in its Complaint:

    • Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 
    • The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

    Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

    • A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act as described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Websites are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals;
    • A permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and 28 CFR § 36.501 (b) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring the Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and implementing regulations, so that the Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in Paragraph 6 above;
    • Payment of litigation expenses and costs;
    • Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505; and,
    • The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate.

    Comments