Disabled Parking - Cheaters?

[mjmcca]

Something on this thread has bothered me. One poster said that MS was not covered by ADA. They obviously don't know many if any MS patients or much about MS. It is a progressive neurological disease In some people it effects their sight. In others balance. THey tend to tire easily. Most eventually end up in W/C or bed bound. Some progresss to this stage quickly and others gradually over years.



The same poster also spoke of Lupus not being eligable for ADA coverage. Again I dont thinkt hey know much about that disease either since it is very debilitating .


Here are some resources
http://www.uklupus.co.uk/lsymp.html


http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/mssymptoms.html

 

[pugdog]

Petitioning the city has been hard enough! I'm not sure how I would do at a state level. But it's a great idea. Perhaps I should contact the county sheriff's office..... hmmmmm.... you gave me something to think about.

County level might be very doable. And then it would be easier to actually make a dent in the violaters

 

[SueM in MN]

Something on this thread has bothered me. One poster said that MS was not covered by ADA. They obviously don't know many if any MS patients or much about MS. It is a progressive neurological disease In some people it effects their sight. In others balance. THey tend to tire easily. Most eventually end up in W/C or bed bound. Some progresss to this stage quickly and others gradually over years.



The same poster also spoke of Lupus not being eligable for ADA coverage. Again I dont thinkt hey know much about that disease either since it is very debilitating .


Here are some resources
http://www.uklupus.co.uk/lsymp.html


http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/mssymptoms.html

Well, that poster was right in a way.
The ADA doesn't actually cover Lupus, MS, cerebral palsy (which is my DD's main diagnosis), blindness, autism or diabetes. In fact, the ADA doesn't cover ANY conditions or diseases at all (except for HIV/AIDS because at the time the ADA was drafted, people were getting fired for no other reason than that they had HIV or AIDS).
What it does cover is individual with a disability who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a "major life activity", or has a record that sort of an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.
"Major life activities" include functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

There are certain conditions listed as examples of conditions that might cause physical or mental impairment. Some of the listed examples include (I added the bold):

Examples of physical or mental impairments include, but are not limited to, such contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments; cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, specific learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism. Homosexuality and bisexuality are not physical or mental impairments under the ADA.

They didn't have a long list of conditions because they didn't want to miss listing something and have it not be covered.
And, they also didn't want to just make someone covered because they have a specific diagnosis.

The way the law is written, it's not enough just to have a diagnosis of one of those "physical or mental impairments." The law says

An "individual with a disability" is a person who --
Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a "major life activity", or

Has a record of such an impairment, or

Is regarded as having such an impairment.

So, you have to have a "physical or mental impairment" and have a/some limitations.
It would be possible for someone who has a diagnosis of cerebral palsy, or lupus, or MS to NOT be covered by the ADA because their condition is not interfering with their ability to do things like walk, talk, eat, etc.
(In other words, an "impairment", such as MS, is only a "disability" under the ADA if it substantially limits one or more major life activities.)

It's possible that at some time in the future they might be covered (i.e. their condition may cause a disability) especially with things like MS or Muscular Dystrophy, which progress with time, but just having a diagnosis doesn't necessarily mean there is any disability.
Here's a link to a page of the ADA Title II highlights.
And another link to an article in Ability Magazine about the ADA.

 

[AlmostMrsH]

Well, that poster was right in a way.
The ADA doesn't actually cover Lupus, MS, cerebral palsy (which is my DD's main diagnosis), blindness, autism or diabetes. In fact, the ADA doesn't cover ANY conditions or diseases at all (except for HIV/AIDS because at the time the ADA was drafted, people were getting fired for no other reason than that they had HIV or AIDS).
What it does cover is individual with a disability who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a "major life activity", or has a record that sort of an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.
"Major life activities" include functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

There are certain conditions listed as examples of conditions that might cause physical or mental impairment. Some of the listed examples include (I added the bold):


Quote:
Examples of physical or mental impairments include, but are not limited to, such contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments; cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, specific learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism. Homosexuality and bisexuality are not physical or mental impairments under the ADA.



They didn't have a long list of conditions because they didn't want to miss listing something and have it not be covered.
And, they also didn't want to just make someone covered because they have a specific diagnosis.

The way the law is written, it's not enough just to have a diagnosis of one of those "physical or mental impairments." The law says
Quote:
An "individual with a disability" is a person who --
Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a "major life activity", or

Has a record of such an impairment, or

Is regarded as having such an impairment.


So, you have to have a "physical or mental impairment" and have a/some limitations.
It would be possible for someone who has a diagnosis of cerebral palsy, or lupus, or MS to NOT be covered by the ADA because their condition is not interfering with their ability to do things like walk, talk, eat, etc.
(In other words, an "impairment", such as MS, is only a "disability" under the ADA if it substantially limits one or more major life activities.)

It's possible that at some time in the future they might be covered (i.e. their condition may cause a disability) especially with things like MS or Muscular Dystrophy, which progress with time, but just having a diagnosis doesn't necessarily mean there is any disability.
Here's a link to a page of the ADA Title II highlights.
And another link to an article in Ability Magazine about the ADA.

I think we may be arguing semantics here, but the point that I (and others) are trying to make (especially in light of that other post) is that while having MS or Lupus does not automatically qualify you as disabled under the ADA, it doesn't immediately disqualify you either. As has already been mentioned, the protection the ADA offers are dependant on one's symptoms, NOT their diagnosis.
And the issue with autoimmune diseases (I use that example because I know a fair ammount about them) is that they are different for everyone, and can change very rapidly. For example, I used to work a summer camp - I never really liked the heat, but I could deal with it. No, I can barely make it through a grocery trip without becoming overheated and feeling ill. I have good days (I wake up and I'm not dizzy, nauseated, or weak ) and the next day I can't get out of bed. In six months, I've gone from being a star employee to a liability, and I'd say that that has an impact on at least one of my "major life activities".
So, there are many days where I will avoid using my placard because I either feel too good, or don't want to deal with the stares/comments. But there are also days that I just can't deal with that extra walk, when my legs are too heavy to move anyway. I don't abuse the system, as I aquired it though the legal means and I've used it a handful of times, and I'm not going to feel guilty about using it when I have to.

 

[SueM in MN]

that while having MS or Lupus does not automatically qualify you as disabled under the ADA, it doesn't immediately disqualify you either. As has already been mentioned, the protection the ADA offers are dependant on one's symptoms, NOT their diagnosis.

That was the point I was trying to make.
Yes, it is semantics, but a lot of people believe there is some "list" of "covered diseases/conditiions" and that if your condition is on that list, you are automatically covered by the ADA. And, if it's not, you aren't covered at all.
Outside of this thread, I have seen people say just that. I wanted to clarify that point.

And, to use your example of an auto-immune disease (or MS, which someone I know well has), that person will have good and bad days because of the nature of their disease. If they once had a "flare" that made them "fit" the definition in the ADA law, they don't lose protection just because they are having a good day.

 

[mjmcca]

That was the point I was trying to make.
Yes, it is semantics, but a lot of people believe there is some "list" of "covered diseases/conditiions" and that if your condition is on that list, you are automatically covered by the ADA. And, if it's not, you aren't covered at all.
Outside of this thread, I have seen people say just that. I wanted to clarify that point.

And, to use your example of an auto-immune disease (or MS, which someone I know well has), that person will have good and bad days because of the nature of their disease. If they once had a "flare" that made them "fit" the definition in the ADA law, they don't lose protection just because they are having a good day.

I know that it depends on your disability. I unfortunately see a lot of people who are or will be permanantly disabled. I work on a neurology unit, Between people who have strokes and people with MS or ALS, I see too many people who are curently or will eventually be covered by the ADA . I guess i just felt the need to educatew people about MS it is not very well understood by the public.

 

[SueM in MN]

I know that it depends on your disability. I unfortunately see a lot of people who are or will be permanantly disabled. I work on a neurology unit, Between people who have strokes and people with MS or ALS, I see too many people who are curently or will eventually be covered by the ADA . I guess i just felt the need to educatew people about MS it is not very well understood by the public.

I think we are all trying to say the same thing.
The person I know with MS looks fine right now and no one would know he has MS just from looking at him. But, he had a flare a few years ago when he could not even lift a pencil. So (even though he looks good right now), he is covered under the ADA because he has been "disabled enough" to fit under it.