Plaintiff
- Name: Andres Gomez
- Filing date: April 12, 2019
- State of filing: Florida
Defendant
- Name: Riverchase Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery
- Website: www.riverchasedermatology.com
- Industry: Medical
- Summary: Riverchase Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery is a medical dermatology office in Miami Florida.
Case Summary
On April 12, 2019, Andres Gomez filed a Complaint in Florida Federal court against Riverchase Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery. Plaintiff Andres Gomez alleges that www.riverchasedermatology.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 option to adjust the website format to one that is fully readable through Screen Reader Software (SRS.)
- Defendant’s website does not contain a statement of its ADA policy towards visually impaired patrons.
- Defendant’s website is missing 32 image alternative texts. Defendant’s website did not provide alt text accessible images for the Plaintiff while using the Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software. Additionally, the website provides only a semantic meaning and description of images which cannot be read by search engines or be used to later determine the content of the
image from page context alone. Plaintiff uses a screen reader to navigate through the defendant’s website, however, is unable to understand the service image tabs provided in the defendant’s website. Without alternative text, the content of an image will be not accessible to Plaintiff. - The defendant’s website has 3 linked images missing alternative texts. The defendant’s website contains links that are empty or has no value text. When Plaintiff used Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software to click on the image link with the words: “Riverchase Dermatology And Cosmetic Surgery” it did not read the words on the image link, instead, it processed: “slash visited link image.” This resulted in repeated confusion and frustration for Plaintiff while navigating through the defendant’s website. Plaintiff was unable to determine the purpose of the links with missing alternative texts.
- Defendant’s website has a missing form label. This signifies that there is a label that does not specifically indicate its function. Plaintiff was confused when using the Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software to click on the box next to the HIPPA Privacy Statement on the page to schedule an appointment that described it as: “tick box.” The description tick box did not give the Plaintiff information to discern the purpose of the “tick box.” Defendant’s website left Plaintiff feeling confused and frustrated as the Website did not provide a first level heading that should be present on all pages to skip over a repetitive list.
- Defendant’s website has 25 broken ARIA references that appear as an error. Plaintiff encountered many aria errors that did not specify the element clicked when Plaintiff used the Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software. This broken aria reference did not provide the exact content that was specified on the defendant’s website, creating an inconsistent experience for Plaintiff.
- Defendant’s website contains a contrast error. Adequate contrast is necessary for all users, especially users with low vision or visual impairment. This poor contrast created difficulty for the Plaintiff to navigate on the defendant’s website, for instance, the color of white text on the services tab: Adult and Dermatology to its light blue 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 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 § 36.504 (a) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its 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 costs of suit;
- 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.
