Legally Disabled??

[zzyzx409]

I was just reading on another unnamed Disney Forum, and the topic of HC access and accomodation was being discussed.

Someone (I presume a Disneyland CM) said that persons with "just a broken leg" did not qualify as a "Legally Disabled Person".

All I could think of was.... Huh? Why is a person with a boken leg not a "Legsally Disabled Person"? Does a pesron have to have a tatoo on their forehead to be legally disabled?

Can someone point me to the approiate law description?

Any help and or thoughts much apprefciated.

CU@DL

Andy

 

[ducklite]

Generally a person with a temporary disability is not "legally disabled."

That's not to say yhat they aren't eligible for some temporary accomodations, such as a temporary handicap placard for their car--but not a handicap license tag. They might be able to collect temporary disability payments, depending ont he type of work they do, but they are not eligible for SSDI.

The difference is if the person in question has a temporary condition where they will in time be able to resume all or almost all of their regular life activites, versus someone who has a condition which is not expected to ever get "better" enough that they will be able to have the abilities of the average person in their age brackett.

That said, I'd like to know more about teh context of this other post.

Anne

 

[kaytieeldr]

A person with a broken leg is generally not a "permanently disabled person", but illegal? Wow - I didn't know handicaps are legislated like that... especially not in ultra-liberal California!

 

[videogal1]

I was just reading on another unnamed Disney Forum, and the topic of HC access and accomodation was being discussed.

Someone (I presume a Disneyland CM) said that persons with "just a broken leg" did not qualify as a "Legally Disabled Person".

All I could think of was.... Huh? Why is a person with a boken leg not a "Legsally Disabled Person"? Does a pesron have to have a tatoo on their forehead to be legally disabled?

Can someone point me to the approiate law description?

Any help and or thoughts much apprefciated.


Andy

Legally disabled, federally speaking, is defined by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). According to the ADA a person who is significantly impaired in one of life's major activities is legally disabled and is qualified to claim certain civil rights. Significantly is not temporary, fleeting, comes and goes, or inconvenient. Significant is permanent loss of use, as in blind, deaf, paralyzed, unable to care for self. Now, states have laws that address this issue as well and in some states the definition of disability does not require a significant level of compromised impairment.

 

[herodrx1]

I've got to wonder what context the person was refering to. Were they talking about getting benefits or being able to use handicap rooms, ramps, access, etc...
To me a broken leg should let you use access doors etc.. but you shouldn't get disability payments. Heck my DD is just above "legally blind" and she can't get (and doesn't need) payments.

I hope that it wasn't someone wanting to use and abuse the system.

 

[zumbergc]

My mom had a broken ankle, w/ plates, screws, the whole nine yards.
She also sprained the other ankle at the same time.

She was able to get a temporary handicapped placard (it was a hang tag one), it was good for like 3-6 months.

She could barely walk in the begining, so being able to park in the special parking spaces at the store were awesome. Plus, she used the scooters at places like meijers to help get around.

I didn't read the other discussion, however if you have limited mobility for a temporary injury, things like utilizing the HC parking spaces are really helpful when you can only walk/limp/hop so far. It makes the difference from being able to go to the store yourself, especially if most of the family lives several hours from where they live.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

To me a broken leg should let you use access doors etc.. but you shouldn't get disability payments. Heck my DD is just above "legally blind" and she can't get (and doesn't need) payments.

Same here. I've been a paraplegic since 1984 and have never gotten, or needed, disability payments.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

I would guess that they meant that the person didn't have a disability that qualified under A.D.A.. The A.D.A. is very specific about the kinds of conditions that are covered -- it doesn't list conditions specifically but it talks about the kinds of skill deficits a person needs to have and they fact that they have to result from a physical or mental problem.

So, for example, if an individual is unable to read because of blindness, or dyslexia, they most likely meet the ADA's standard of "disability". Therefore, Disney has the legal responsibility to provide them with alternative means of getting information -- a picture menu, including the information shown on warning signs in the video you see before going on Mission Space etc . . . On the other hand, if someone can't read because they're two or they don't speak English, or they didn't attend school then LEGALLY Disney doesn't have to accomodate them. They may choose to do so, but they are required to.

So, my guess is when the CM said the individual with the broken leg wasn't legally disabled they meant that they weren't required by law to accomodate them. Whether that's true I don'tknow.

 

[ducklite]

My brother suffered horrific injurines in a work-related accident last winter. So far he has had five surgeries to repair a broken back, shattered heels (I mean shattered!), and a chipped elbow.

He hasn't worked since. He recently was cleared to drive again, but only an automatic with power brakes, he'll never be able to drive standard again.

He walks, very slowly, with the use of a cane. He'll have a permanent major limp and his injuries will forever keep him from being the active carpenter he once was.

He still attends five hours of PT daily. He had to learn to walk again.

Bottom line, he's got a handicap placard for his car. Walking long distances is very painful for him, and if it can save him 30 feet of walking on a trip to the market, that's 30 feet less pain he needs to endure. He uses a power wheelchair for anything more than a quick trip anywhere. He was told that he would be able to file for SSDI, but he really is hoping to enroll in a training course when he finishes PT and learn a new skill, something that doesn't involve any type of lifting, mobility, etc. Maybe something with computers or bookkeeping? Who knows.

The difference between him and a guy who breaks his leg skiiing but will be back on teh slopes the next year afer the cast is off is that my brother has a major, life impacting loss of function which precludes him from many types of employment and many normal life activities. Mowing his lawn is out of the questioin, as is snow shoveling, or even going up and down his cellar steps to do his laundry. The broken leg is a temporary inconvenience. My brother will probably never recover more than he has at this point. (Which thank God has been miraculous, so we're not complaining!)

Anne

 

[CPT Tripss]

The broken leg scenerio is considered from the ADA, social security and many state's motor vehicle regulations a "temporary" disability. That limits the remedies available to the person and the requirements on the public accommodation.
Disney, in my fortunately limited experience is quite accommodating. They don't have to be but they are.
Sadly, some folks want to fake a condition in order to "get ahead," that's frequently what starts the legal discussions. While I certainly don't condone that, I would rather see WDW accommodate someone who is faking in order to be sure they are accommodating all who need it.

 

[videogal1]

The legal definition of disabled, as stated in the ADA has NOTHING to do with the standard used by social security to determine if someone is unable to work at any job because of a physical or mental condition.

The standard that is used by doctors to determine whether their patient needs a temporary or permanent use of a handicapped parking permit has nothing to do with EITHER of these, as well.

Disney is REQUIRED to be compliant with the accessibility standards mandated by the ADA and they have gotten into legal trouble over their non-compliance many times because of it.

Any time someone who is a qualified person with a disability is forced to accept lesser accommodations or substitute activities than what are offered to the general public because of a Disney policy or a Disney construction decision (such as no accessible concierge level rooms available at a specified resort) Disney is not complying with the ADA. The ADA was supposed to make reasonable activities available to all...not to institutionalize "work around" solutions.