Awww, shucks.
I really was hoping that the information I posted would be taken as written. It is fact and should be foremost in the minds of those who are trying to evaluate their physical conditions to determine whether they have a leg to stand on (legally or socially) when they wish to take advantage of "perks" accorded to those with a legally disabling condition.
You state that:
Disability can flucuate. You may have periods of disability followed by periods of wellness. Permanent disability ususally is defined by SS as a period of one year. This is the standard used to qualify for SS benefits I believe.
Someone who has a broken leg and is in a cast, unable to walk, needs assistive devices is disabled until the leg heals and the pt is ABLE to resume unassisted mobility. This person may or may not require support of the ADA during the disable period.
What you say may be true but it is legally irrelevant. The Social Security Administration devised THEIR OWN set of criteria for disabilities so that they could administer the dispersal of money. Their standards and policies have absolutely no standing in law and it is dangerous to confuse the standards set by the ADA, a Congressional Act, and the office policies of the Social Security Administration.
A case in point, for instance, is the use of Service Dogs. Only someone who is legally disabled, as defined by the ADA, may, without committing fraud, be accompanied by a dog (a dog individually trained to assist in specific ways to mitigate the disability) into places where dogs are normally prohibited from entering. A person that cannot meet the ADA criteria who tries to pass their companion animal, or pet, off as a Service Dog can be prosecuted for fraud... a very expensive error on their part.
A person who uses a wheelchair temporarily, or infrequently has no legal standing under the ADA, to enforce accessibility issues they may be faced with while using that wheelchair... Most of the wheelchair and
ECV use in the park is not by those who are legally disabled, as they might presume, but by those who have vexing physical impairments that do not, in fact, meet the legal (ADA) definition of disability.
Now, after all that distressing information, I will remind all those following this thread that WDW is one of the few places on earth whose mission it is to make people feel better in ways that can be achieved through no other way but fantasy, imagination, and fun.
If a park visitor cannot get past physical pain or mental impairments enough to allow Disney to succeed in this mission without the use the strategies the administrators of Disneyworld itself has provided to accomplish that very thing, then no one has the right to deny them access to all the services Disney can offer.
Remember, too, the purpose of this thread was to settle a family dispute, not to bum everyone out. Let's please end it here so we can have some fun.
I love these things...very cute
