Maine Human Rights Commission finds no reasonable grounds in deaf patient’s complaint about Concentra interpreting and care

Josh Sheedy, a Deaf man who uses American Sign Language, told the Maine Human Rights Commission that inconsistent provision of sign‑language interpreters during his Concentra appointments led to a misdiagnosis and a wrong return‑to‑work plan that caused ongoing pain. He described repeated appointments without qualified Deaf interpreters and said that key medical information was missed as a result.

The complaint centered on whether Concentra denied him effective communication as a public‑accommodation and on whether that lack of communication changed his treatment. Sheedy told commissioners, “I was not provided effective communication, and that led to continued medical issues,” and described repeatedly being given written notes or whiteboard explanations instead of qualified Deaf/hearing interpreter teams.

Why it matters: A finding for Sheedy would have marked a failure by a medical provider to provide communication access to a Deaf patron and could have implications for how occupational health vendors document interpreter requests and scheduling. Concentra’s counsel urged the commission to rely on the investigative record, saying invoices showed interpretation was provided for a majority of visits and that many of Sheedy’s allegations were not in the complaint record.

Supporting evidence and hearing: The commission heard Sheedy and a certified Deaf language consultant who said the absence of Deaf‑interpreter teams led to factual errors in the investigator’s record. Concentra’s attorney emphasized that the record contained invoices showing interpreters attended many visits and argued that some statements Sheedy made at the hearing were not in the investigative record and should not be considered.

Outcome: After questions of credibility and a review of the investigative record, the commission adopted the investigator’s recommendation and voted to find no reasonable grounds to believe unlawful discrimination occurred. The commission recorded an affirmative vote in favor of the no‑reasonable‑grounds finding by the commissioners present. The commission said it will send a written notice of the finding to the parties and arrange interpretation of that notice.

What the decision does and does not say: The commission’s determination rests on the evidence compiled during the investigation (medical records, invoices and investigator notes) and assessments about the parties’ credibility. The decision did not award remedies; it concludes the commission lacks sufficient evidence to find unlawful discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act in this record.

Next steps: The commission will issue a written letter to the parties documenting its finding and the parties may assess further legal options outside the commission process.