{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021335168616655197, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013764624913971095, 'mean_word_length': 5.109243697478991, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
SUPREME COURT REDEFINES DISABILITY - LIMITING ADA PROTECTIONS FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANTEES IN HOSPITALS

On January 30, 2001, both Brianna and Aimee arrived at St. Hope Hospital in labor. Aimee, a deaf individual who communicated through sign language, was immediately provided an interpreter. On the other hand, Brianna, a cochlear implantee, was legally denied the use of an interpreter, due to her ability to effectively communicate using both her implant and lip reading. During the delivery, Brianna found that the noise and commotion prevented her from being able to understand what she was being instructed to do. Brianna also found that she was not able to lip read because of the surgical masks covering the nurses’ and physician’s mouths. Unable to use her implant effectively, Brianna’s and Aimee’s abilities to understand and convey information were comparable. However, Brianna did not have the same legal right to an interpreter because of her customary ability to communicate effectively using her cochlear implant. This commentary focuses on recent changes that have effectively barred patients’ rights to an interpreter in certain circumstances. A cochlear implant is an electronic device that partially restores hearing to deaf individuals . As of November 2001, approximately 70,000 people worldwide have attained some degree of sound perception with the aid of a cochlear implant. The United States is home to at least 21,000 children and