Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome not a Disability 440

Posted by michael from the upton-sinclair-rolling-over dept.
An Anonymous Coward writes: "It turns out that the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't think Carpal Tunnel Syndrome is a real disability. See here for details." Read the summary or the whole opinion. In a nutshell: just because a woman was sufficiently disabled that she couldn't perform her job due to carpal-tunnel, doesn't mean she was sufficiently disabled to be considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Everyone who has that nagging pain in your wrists should probably read this decision.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome not a Disability More

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome not a Disability

Comments Filter:

  • Better Advice... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by los furtive ( 232491 ) <ChrisLamothe@NOSPam.gmail.com> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:31PM (#2804811) Homepage
    Anyone who has a nagging pain in their wrists should learn how to use a keyboard properly [ucla.edu].

    • Re:Better Advice... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AnalogBoy ( 51094 )
      I had a PS/2 interface installed in my head. Unfortunately, when i had my neural implant done in 1996, i didn't forsee USB or firewire. No neuralpr0n. :(

      Actually, i use a different technique Than the one which is taught to be proper - i learned on my own. Almost failed typing class even though I typed faster than the techer (90WPM against her 75) After a good 14 years of typing at least 8 hours a day (with very few exceptions), i can honestly say the only pain i feel is in my *fingers* (go figure).
      • So what is the technique? I don't see why this got modded interesting. Please tell us what you do so we may try it out. I'm not posting anon because I really want to know and most people(stupid people) don't read (Score: 0) posts.
      • Actually, i use a different technique Than the one which is taught to be proper - i learned on my own. Almost failed typing class even though I typed faster than the techer

        Same here. I learned to type by learning where all of the keys were - so I subconsciously hit keys with whatever fingertip happened to be closest.

        The whole "home key" thing just killed my rate.
    • One of the problems I see with this is getting the right equipment to be able to do these things. A case like the one talked about in the article will give support to those companies that don't want to provide their employee's with a good setup to prevent RSI injuries like CT. It might become difficult to get the setup you need to properly use a keyboard. I can't use a mouse that much any more. I have to use a touch pag which is easier on my hands and wrists.
      I am lucky because my employer has seen fit to provide me with the setup I need. I don't have any where near as much pain as I have had in the past 2 years.

  • CPS seemed pretty real when a friend of mine got it a couple of years back. She couldn't type or write much, which severely impeded her completing her academic studies. She had to get an automatic car (relatively unusual in the UK) so she could drive mostly one-handed. It caused her pain and discomfort for several months. If this isn't a disability under US law, then US law is broken.

    • Oh, come on.

      The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect those people with disabilities that *severely* impair their ability to function day to day. To compare "pain and discomfort for several months" with, say, losing a leg, is more than insulting to those who are unfortunate enough to have a true disability and is a bastardization of the law's intended use.

      • The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect those people with disabilities that *severely* impair their ability to function day to day.

        Did you even read my original post? My friend could hardly type or write for a year, covering most of her final year at university. You don't consider that a serious impairment? You try it.

    • Like he said, read the decision (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GMontag ( 42283 ) <gmontag AT guymontag DOT com> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:46PM (#2804937) Homepage Journal
      The US Supreme Court did NOT rule that CTS is NOT a disability. They ruled that whatever disability you have has to preclude you from leading a normal life.

      From the link to the decision, scroll down toward the bottom of the page:

      " The District Court noted that at the time respondent sought an accommodation from petitioner,
      she admitted that she was able to do the manual tasks required by her original two jobs in QCIO.
      App. to Pet. for Cert. A--36. In addition, according to respondent's deposition testimony, even
      after her condition worsened, she could still brush her teeth, wash her face, bathe, tend her flower
      garden, fix breakfast, do laundry, and pick up around the house. App. 32--34. The record also
      indicates that her medical conditions caused her to avoid sweeping, to quit dancing, to occasionally
      seek help dressing, and to reduce how often she plays with her children, gardens, and drives long
      distances. Id., at 32, 38--39. But these changes in her life did not amount to such severe
      restrictions in the activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives that they
      establish a manual-task disability as a matter of law. On this record, it was therefore inappropriate
      for the Court of Appeals to grant partial summary judgment to respondent on the issue whether
      she was substantially limited in performing manual tasks, and its decision to do so must be
      reversed."

    • The ruling isn't, but the headline is. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fizbin ( 2046 ) <martinNO@SPAMsnowplow.org> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @03:10PM (#2805095) Homepage

      As many others have already pointed out, this ruling is on what is considered a disability under the ADA, which is an American law that provides the minimum which everyone (employers, shopkeepers, public transportation, etc.) must do to accomodate disability. For example, I believe that it's the ADA which forces businesses that wouldn't normally allow pets on the premises to nevertheless accept seeing-eye dogs.

      This ruling has no bearing on whether or not carpal tunnel could be considered a disability under, say, a worker's compensation law. It merely states that in order to invoke the power of the ADA ones disability must extend to basic life tasks; merely making ones job impossible is insufficient.

      However, if your friend was forced to get a specially equipped car, then her disability was much more severe than the disability in this case, and in all likelihood meets the standard the court set in this case for invoking the ADA.

  • court's opinion vs. insurance company's (Score:5, Interesting)

    by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:35PM (#2804835) Journal
    This is interesting. The court is basically saying that if you can do "everyday life tasks" (brushing your hair, cooking dinner, whatever), you're not disabled for the purposes of the ADA. But on my disability policy, it states that if I can't do my regular job, they consider me disabled. Since my job (like most of yours) involves lots of typing, losing both legs wouldn't make me disabled, but C-T would. So now the question is, how does this court decision affect my policy? Can I expect a call from my agent telling me they've changed their definition to line up with the court?

    • Re:court's opinion vs. insurance company's (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Masem ( 1171 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:42PM (#2804906)
      IANAL: The court's decision said that the woman had no right to sue under the ADA law. However, if your employer or HMO goes above and beyond the law to consider CTS as a disability, then they have every right to do that, and consider yourself lucky to have such a policy. Mind you, next time the policy's up for review, they may consider removing that because of this, but for a company that hires computer professionals, that would be a very Bad Thing.

      On the other hand, if your policy does not explicit cover CTS as a disability, you will have a much tougher time if you decide to sue for benefits or discrimation, as you will have to prove that you cannot perform daily tasks from it.

      In other words: this ruling cannot trump any policy that already allows for CTS disability payments. Just don't expect many of these policies to exist in the near future.

      • Re:court's opinion vs. insurance company's (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SirWhoopass ( 108232 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:48PM (#2804958)
        Exactly. The court said that woman did not have a right to sue onder the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) It did not say that she was not disabled or that she could perform her job. She simply does not have a claim under the ADA.

        Before everyone rants about how terrible that is, you must consider the ADA. If CTS is a disability under the ADA, then a lot of things will have to be rebuilt to accomodate people with CTS (just like buildings have to add ramps, elevators, handicap-accessable bathrooms, etc). The ADA is to provide for people whose lives have been significantly impacted. I don't imagine that CTS is fun, and she probably has a claim under workman's comp, but it isn't an ADA issue.

        • ...she probably has a claim under workman's comp...

          She in fact filed and settled a claim under workman's comp. From the opinion:

          In light of these restrictions, for the next two years petitioner assigned respondent to various modified duty jobs. Nonetheless, respondent missed some work for medical leave, and eventually filed a claim under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 342.0011 et seq. (1997 and Supp. 2000). The parties settled this claim, and respondent returned to work.
    • This is interesting. The court is basically saying that if you can do "everyday life tasks" (brushing your hair, cooking dinner, whatever), you're not disabled for the purposes of the ADA. But on my disability policy, it states that if I can't do my regular job, they consider me disabled. Since my job (like most of yours) involves lots of typing, losing both legs wouldn't make me disabled, but C-T would. So now the question is, how does this court decision affect my policy? Can I expect a call from my agent telling me they've changed their definition to line up with the court?
      It's possible, but I would think unlikely. Aside from the fact that the case hasn't fully concluded, the ADA is a federal law perscribing the minimum employers must do to accomodate their employees' disabilities. Disability, for the purposes of the ADA, is defined as an impairment that affects everyday life tasks (as you stated)--but an employer is not required to restrict its policy just to that definition.

      My understanding is that your employer would be free to change its policy, but not compelled to do so.

    • You've probably got it right, unless there is some clause saying that they can't change their rules (and what are the odds of that happening?) Even if they do not change it, it is also possible that they can deny it. You sue them. They point to US Sup. Ct. Case XYZ, and show that even though you are disabled by their terms, by broader legal terms, you aren't.

      What will actually happen is that the insurance company will use a combination of both interpretations, and not pay you in any event. That's how they work.

      (You don't think I got rich by writing a lot of checks?)
    • The court is basically saying that if you can do "everyday life tasks" (brushing your hair, cooking dinner, whatever), you're not disabled for the purposes of the ADA. But on my disability policy, it states that if I can't do my regular job, they consider me disabled. Since my job (like most of yours) involves lots of typing, losing both legs wouldn't make me disabled, but C-T would. So now the question is, how does this court decision affect my policy? Can I expect a call from my agent telling me they've changed their definition to line up with the court?

      One has practically nothing to do with the other. The notion of "disability" is used in many places in the law, and it is defined differently in each one of those places.

      For example, to be "disabled" under the ADA, you need to be impaired in your ability to work. (An oversimplification, but suitable for purposes of this example.) On the other hand, to be eligible for Social Security Disability payments, you have to be completely unable to perform any meaningful work. Same notion of "disability"; two very different meanings.

      The way "disabled" is used in your policy is yet a third meaning-- that is, how your insurance company defines you as being eligible for a payout. Their definition of "disability" should be spelled out in your policy-- most often in Long Term Disability policies, it means an inability to perform your current occupation. Your policy being an agreement between your insurance company and you ("I will pay you premiums if you promise to pay me benefits if I become unable to perform my current occupation") will not be affected at all by this decision. Although your insurance policy uses the same word "disability" as the ADA, it never incorporated the ADA's (or SSI's, or anyone else's) definition of the word, and is thus unaffacted by this decision.

  • Interesting reading. The disability has to permanently impair "major life activities". Which means more than just the ability to perform the work in a certain job. So if your carpal tunnel syndrome prevents you from keyboarding, but not from driving, cooking, etc, and it's not permanent, it's not a disability. You mean that an inability to type isn't as disabling as losing a leg? Whoda thunk it.

    • Re:9-0 decision (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Buran ( 150348 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @03:48PM (#2805351)
      Yes, but what is considered to be a "major life activity"? What you might not see as a major loss would be to me. That inability to type would be as disabling as losing a leg -- it'd rob me of my ability to communicate in the best way I know how (and one of the relatively few options open to me.)

      I am hearing impaired, and I consider myself to be disabled. It isn't a disability that you can see, as the cause of it lies with destroyed nerves in my inner ears (my cochleas were damaged due to maternal illness before I was born). I do wear a hearing aid, which provides for some relief, but it's not complete; I still don't have normal hearing in my right ear, and my left is so far gone that an aid can't help. So I have no stereo hearing; I understand the principle of what stereo is, but I've never experienced it. It's sort of like trying to explain color to the blind. And until a few years ago, the sound of a bird chirping was foreign to me -- only recently have computerized hearing aids tailored to an individual profile been good enough to help. (I still can't hear all high-pitch sounds, though.)

      Are there things I can't do? Certainly. I can't handle large crowds (face-to-face RPG gaming is a no-no unless the group is four people or less; I found this out the hard way, so I've reverted to MUCKs for most of my roleplaying). I can't talk to people easily while at a swimming pool (hearing aids aren't waterproof). I can't be in the military or hold many different jobs where good hearing is a necessity. I can't understand the lyrics of songs without reading a transcript first. I must have closed captioning on all television shows I watch. I cannot tell where a siren is coming from while I'm driving and have to look around for the flashing lights.

      There are upsides (roomsful of screaming kids can be instantly silenced with the press of an 'off' button on a hearing aid, for instance) but the downsides are there, too. Under the ADA, I sometimes made use of a note-taker in high school and college because keeping up with lectures was difficult. (That sort of thing is what the ADA was designed for -- equal access where vital to those of us who otherwise would have to go without.) I think equal access to education is classifiable under "major life activity" -- but I don't go around claiming that the ADA means I have to be given a disabled parking placard or anything.

      There are limitations to what I feel I can ask for under the law. I've adjusted my activities to use the senses I do have. Some people might think I don't have a life, for instance, because I chat with people on the Internet rather than going out and going to parties -- no, I say; my life is enriched by that. I'm just as social as the next person might be; I just interact in a way that utilizes what I'm left with.

      As for the original topic, it does seem to me that the woman in this case did go a bit far in her efforts to get a "more acceptable" job ...

    • No. (Score:2)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 )
      It's still a disability. It's just not a disability as defined by the ADA. The woman was not suing her employer under some employment disability clause, she was saying they violated the ADA.

      If it WAS, many other things would have to be done.. like, doorhandles changed on every public buildling so someone with CTS could open it, etc.

  • Did anyone actually READ the judgement? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Karen_Frito ( 91720 ) <Frito_KAL@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:37PM (#2804853) Homepage
    Nowhere did it state that Carpal Tunnel Syndrome was not a disability -- it stated that in the case of the woman named, they were not considering it a disability because she was not impaired sufficently to be unable to do her job.
    • To actually read the underlying judgment, and the extensive news coverage of the company's attempts at accomodation would take time away from composing witty on-line flames.

      Yours truly,
      Mr. X

      ...NPR had excellent coverage of this story from the beginning...

  • What next (Score:5, Informative)

    by epukinsk ( 120536 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:37PM (#2804855) Homepage Journal
    Guess we're going to be needing these [aaos.org] after all.

    It's a pain in the ass to do them, but your wrists will thank you in five years. Young coders might feel invincible now, but any sort of 40hr+ work week will make quick work of the nerves in your hands and arms no matter how young you are.

    Also check out this informative (if cute) prevention handbook [orthogate.org].

    -Erik

    • Re:What next (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mr. Eradicator ( 470089 )
      Exactly ... there are ways to prevent CPS and people should be smart enough to do what they can to prevent it.

      Sure, there might be a few cases of CPS (possibly intensified by other circumstances or medical conditions) where it wasn't possible to prevent, but I don't want tax dollars going to disability funding for retards who don't understand the ergonomics of typing and using a mouse.

      It's like when I see some obese lard-ass rolling out of their cadillac in the handicap spot at McDonald's. They obviously aren't doing anything to prevent their "disability", but they'll take that front parking spot before an elderly woman can get to it.

      Reality check ...
      • I'm reminded of an incident which illustrated to me in gory detail how the label "disabled" is often abused. I was working in the emergency department (in a major Canadian city) when a scruffy looking late teenage male was rolled in from the ambulance bay. He was in florid diabetic ketoacidosis, which (without too much detail) means his sugars were out of control, and his body didn't have enough insulin on board to utilize his sugar properly. (that's a gross oversimplification, but just go with me on this)

        Anyhow. Going through his chart I noted that he had a long history of letting his glycemic control get out from under him. He was a little out of it (thanks to the DKA) but was awake enough to give a pretty decent history. He was feeling a little off for a few days, but basically ignored it. Made no adjustments to his insulin regimen, nor did he seek medical attention until he was in pretty rough metabolic shape.

        I asked some pretty basic questions to get an idea of his disease state. He'd been diabetic from a very young age, always controlled with insulin, but didn't have a glucometer with which to check his blood sugar. Every diabetic should be checking their blood sugars with some degree of regularity. Why didn't he have one? He couldn't afford it.

        Couldn't afford it? Oooookay. I knew he hadn't been living with his parents for a few years, so he was out and fending for himself. Fair enough, but I gathered that he had to have some sort of income... not only to pay his rent, but to explain the Tommy Hilfiger branded shirt, designer jeans, and brand new Nikes he was wearing on his feet. So I asked him what he did for a living.

        "Nothing. I'm on disability."

        "Oh? What for?" I asked, thinking I had missed something. Instead he looked at me like he thought I was completely looney-tunes.

        "For diabetes, of course." He snorted.

        Not only was this guy munching up our public medical system's budget with his repeated and mostly preventable frequent flyer visits to the emergency department, but he was receiving government funding for his "disability". Sure, his diabetes was poorly controlled, but not because of the disease itself, but because this guy basically didn't give a flying fuck.

        Ultimately, I don't know what pissed me off more. There, of course, is the fact that this guy was milking his disease for disability benefits when thousands upon thousants of diabetics work and live and survive in the real world just fine, thank you. On top of that, some physician somewhere, at some time, had to sign the papers designating his patient as qualifying for government assistance because of his diabetes. I mean, crap, if I have asthma, can I get a cheque too?

        Granted, there's probably a whole psychosocial dimension to the story I haven't explored, but the entire situation does have to strike you as being more than a little absurd. To get back to the Slashdot story, I do think that there are musculoskeletal conditions that affect the wrists enough to severely impair one's ability to perform a great number of tasks, as well as being distressingly painful to boot. But a large majority of people who have repetitive strain injuries or "Carpal Tunnel Syndrome" can benefit from antiinflammatories, physiotherapy, and appropriate work modification (ergonomics and the like). They're probably not permanently disabled and in need of financial assistance. Save the money for the people who really need it.


    • (Yes, there's an intentional typo in the name.)

      The xwrits [lcdf.org] tool occasionally pops up reminders to stop typing and do your writs exercises. And if you ignore it, it makes rude gestures at you. Debian users can just apt-get the xwrits package, and there's source and RPMs and stuff on the project page.

      It definitely helped me. My wrists rarely hurt anymore (but I should keep doing the exercises anyway).

  • CT not proven to be a disability in THIS case.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by moniker_21 ( 414164 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:37PM (#2804857)
    "It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status under this test to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment. Instead, the ADA requires them to offer evidence that the extent of the limitation caused by their impairment in terms of their own experience is substantial. Congress intended the existence of a disability to be determined in such a case-by-case manner."

    This doesn't mean that carpel tunnel isn't a disablity you dolts, it's a very serious problem. This woman's case simply didn't prove that her affliction was serious enough for her to be considered under the ADA.

    • Re:CT not proven to be a disability in THIS case.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:41PM (#2804890) Homepage Journal
      Yes, exactly. Note that unanimous Supreme Court decisions are very rare in any case where there's substantial controversy -- I strongly suspect that this individual really didn't have very strong case (or maybe she had a really lousy lawyer.) I would be very surprised if this case turned out to set any significant precedent.
      • Ok, maybe she didn't have strong case, maybe she had a lousy lawyer, but a unanimous Supreme Court decision like can set a pretty precedence.

        The next thing you will see is insurance companies will lobby to pass a law that CTS not eligible for any compensation anymore.

        The worst thing is to have bad laws stacking up on each other.

      • She had probably a rather strong case; just that the strenght was on the side of the employer, not employee.

        From hearing this from NPR months ago (so the details are sketchy at best), the woman Williams was originally on the Toyota assembly line doing body/final touch work that involved repeative hand motions. She developed CTS on the job, and Toyota moved her to a desk position for some time after it was diagnosed. However, some time later, Toyota moved her back onto the plant floor, giving her a job that involved some reaching up to the top of cars and vans (though this was not the full duty of her job); this irridated her CTS and she complained to the management but they refused to move her from that job, or otherwise she would have been fired. She then filed the lawsuit for discrimination, which did go her way in two lower courts.

        • Just a couple of clarifications, based on the reading of the Supreme Court's decsion:
          1. She wasn't moved to a desk job, but moved to an assembly floor position that didn't require as much manual labor. Specifically she was assigned to a quality control team which did four QC-related tasks, she initially was assigned to rotate between two of the four, two which didn't aggrevate her CTS. Management then got the bright idea to make everyone on the team to rotate through all four tasks, the other two which did aggrevate Williams' CTS.
          2. The district court (Eastern District of Kentucky) found for Toyota ("granted summary judgement for petitioner" in SCOUS terms means the person in front of the "v."). The Sixth Circut court overturned the district court, ignoring the fact that Williams didn't seem to have any problems keeping up with her hygine and household chores (which appears to be a requirement to qualify for ADA protection.)
          -sk
      • On the contrary, this is a very significant case. It lays out the general rules for determining whether a major life function is impaired. Since CT may or may not rise to that level of impairment in individual cases, they must be sorted out individually. This one is being sent back for that to happen.
    • The article also points out:" The ruling does not mean that anyone with carpal tunnel syndrome or similar partial disabilities is automatically excluded from protection by the ADA. But it probably will make such claims harder to prove, since the court makes clear that disability must affect a range of manual tasks or duties. "

    • Re:CT not proven to be a disability in THIS case.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by deebaine ( 218719 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @03:04PM (#2805065) Journal
      Moreover, Justice O' Connor pointed out that the test under the ADA is whether or not a person's disability affects his or her to perform normal daily tasks--not his or her ability to perform a specific job.

      In fact, the ADA specifically states that this is the test. As Justice O'Connor wrote, "Repetitive work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder levels for extended periods is not an important part of most people's daily lives," O'Connor wrote. "Household chores, bathing and brushing one's teeth, in contrast, are among the types of manual tasks of central importance to people's daily lives." In sharp contrast to the rather extreme and dire view suggested by the story posting <rant>(which, in my view, is either misleading and downright shameful or simply reflects a total lack of understanding of the decision and the governing laws)</rant>, the Justices did not rule on the validity of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; they simply verified the intention of the ADA as written and asked the lower court to reconsider its decision.

      In this case, the court held that the woman was not impaired in normal daily tasks, in spite of the fact that she was impaired in her job. There is a critical distinction here, and I firmly agree with the limitations placed on the ADA by the court here.

      -db
    • Reuters (as published via Yahoo news [yahoo.com]) seems to interpret this as having a much more far reaching effect than this one case:

      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a decision that may affect millions of Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled on Tuesday that a landmark 1990 federal law protecting the disabled from discrimination only covered physical impairments that prevented them from carrying out tasks important to daily life.

      The SC probably wouldn't get involved on the factual merits of an individual case, they are in the business of overseeing the interpretation of law, no?

  • CP is totally preventable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:37PM (#2804858)
    Use a keyboard with some ergonomic design principles incorporated into the design.

    Sit in your chair properly.

    Take simple preventative measures such as stretching to reduce pain and stress due to repeated tasks.

    This has all been commonly known for years now, and most businesses will provide rudimentary ergonomic audits for their employees.

    • Not always (Score:3, Interesting)

      by S. Allen ( 5756 )
      While I agree about computer usage, CT can be caused by other factors. For example: we just had our first kid. As we found out, CT can sometimes be brought on by hormone fluctuations post-partum. This is the case with my wife. I've never known anyone with severe CT, but now I know how excruciating it can be. She's often unable to lift our child and she certainly can't drive a car. It may be temporary (we certainly hope so), but in the meantime, it's pretty debilitating.

  • Can't Read (Score:4, Funny)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:38PM (#2804861) Journal

    Everyone who has that nagging pain in your wrists should probably read this decision.

    Too... sore... to... move... mouse.

  • I agree with the Supreme Court's point of view (Score:4, Informative)

    by mrroot ( 543673 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:39PM (#2804872)
    In cases like Williams', "the central inquiry must be whether the claimant is unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people's daily lives, not whether the claimant is unable to perform the tasks associated with her specific job," the court wrote.

    Many people who are in the construction industry, for example, get a bad back over time or are otherwise affected physically over the years of that kind of labor. Many of those people move on to other types of jobs, possibly relating to construction management, sales, inspection, etc. Just because their body no longer allows them to perform one job does not mean they have become disabled.

    On the other hand, if said construction worker cannot perform basic daily tasks, such as bathing or dressing, or cooking, they would be classified as disabled.

  • Because CT is not a disease! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Matey-O ( 518004 ) <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:40PM (#2804886) Homepage Journal
    Woah there moderators! Finish reading before you fire at me:

    I've HAD three or four different maladies related to finger-hand-wrist related movement over the last, (oh god, has it been that long?) 15 years.

    In all cases, the ones that were _computer_ related were cured by altering the work environment.

    The one situation that eventually required surgery, and that was initially thought to be work related, wasn't. It was a Sports related injury. The fact that myself, the office Clinician, and the Workers Comp specified specialist didn't catch it as that is irrelevant. When the _hand_ specialist reviewed it, he stated it was a totally different problem (Intersection Syndrome, not Dequarvains Tendonitis) and not caused by lumping along at a keyboard during the work week.

    That's not to say a company isn't liable for providing a safe environment for its employees, It is. But I wouldn't characterise CT as a modern equivalent of lead poisoning.
    • Disabilties don't have to be diseases, or work-related to qualify under the ADA. If you become disabled in a car accident, through an accident of birth, OR a work-related injury or a disease, you can still make a claim with the ADA. IT doesn't HAVE to be work-related or a disease, just an injury.

      (and on that note, they didn't even say Carpal Tunnel was not a disablity. Just that this woman wasn't disabled.)

  • WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RareHeintz ( 244414 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:41PM (#2804889) Homepage Journal
    From the beginning of the article:

    A UNANIMOUS COURT ruled that Ella Williams' partial disability did not obligate her employer, car manufacturer Toyota, to tailor a job to suit her wrist, arm and shoulder problems.
    So companies can require people to perform jobs that are injurous to them? I know the Libertarian readers will probably just respond by saying, "Get a job that's not on an assembly line", but then they probably have sufficient education and wealth that they can actually get other kinds of work.

    Isn't OSHA supposed to step in somewhere? Do companies actually not realize that it's in their interest to attempt to ensure that their workers' jobs can be performed without injuring them?

    Also from the article:

    Disability cannot be assessed by looking only at someone's fitness to work, the court said.
    So pursuing a livelihood doesn't meet the ADA criterion of "major life activity"?

    OK,
    - B

    • Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Hentai ( 165906 )
      Workers are a dime a dozen - primarily because PEOPLE are a dime a dozen. It ISN'T in a company's best interest to ensure that its work environment is safe and non-injurious, because if its work environment destroys its employees, it can always get more employees to replace them. Companies consider all of their parts in the same way - through cost-benefit analysis. If the cost of replacing X widgets every Y months is less than the cost of making those widgets tough enough to last longer, then you go with that. And, to be honest, people are CHEAP to replace.
    • Do companies actually not realize that it's in their interest to attempt to ensure that their workers' jobs can be performed without injuring them?

      It's definitely not in a company's interests. And the court has said so again. I agree with you; it would be nice if there truly was an interest (ie, incentive) for employers on this front. But there simply isn't, and here's the ultimate proof. I mean, unless you believe in god or karma or something.

      So pursuing a livelihood doesn't meet the ADA criterion of "major life activity"?

      I think the court said that pursuing one specific livelihood isn't a criteria. It's a bad stereotype, I know, but autoworkers are probably left out in the cold in this case. But consider a more educated or retrainable person (say, technology worker) who gets the same affliction. If they can move on to another livelihood and then it's fair to say that their affliction doesn't affect "major life activities". Sucks to be an autoworker, and that's pretty ironic, considering cars make America go around.

    • Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Harmast ( 6975 )
      From the beginning of the article:
      A UNANIMOUS COURT ruled that Ella Williams' partial disability did not obligate her employer, car manufacturer Toyota, to tailor a job to suit her wrist, arm and shoulder problems.

      So companies can require people to perform jobs that are injurous to them? I know the Libertarian readers will probably just respond by saying, "Get a job that's not on an assembly line", but then they probably have sufficient education and wealth that they can actually get other kinds of work.

      Isn't OSHA supposed to step in somewhere? Do companies actually not realize that it's in their interest to attempt to ensure that their workers' jobs can be performed without injuring them?

      This is NOT the Court saying Toyota can require her to do something injurous to herself. It is the Court saying Toyota does not have to redesign a job that has not be found unsafe by OSHA so that it is not painful or aggrevating for her. That is a big difference.

      You ask where OSHA is? Trust me, this is the auto injury and OSHA is there, probably with an inspector on the shop floor. OSHA has probility had this job redesigned several times to be safe for the average person. The average person does not have CTS so OSHA safety requirements don't apply.

      She argued that her CTS was bad enough that it qualified as a disability under the ADA. If she had won than Toyota could have been required to make reasonable (as defined by the court) accomodations, but even then it would not be absolute (otherwise a blind person could sue if not hired as a paint color match tester for example and the employer would have to find a way to make it work).

      The CTS defines a disability as interfering with major life activities of the average person. While making a living qualifies, making a living as a paint inspector does not. Why? Because while the average person does have a job, they do not have a job as a paint inspector.

  • Have a problem with your wrist? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by neo ( 4625 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:41PM (#2804896)
    Take Aikido.

    Aikido focuses on joint locks, which include wrist locks. After taking Aikido you will quickly have wrists that can withstand the rigors of typing. Flexible wrists are the key to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome, IMO, and Aikido is the key to flexible wrists.

    Or you could just wait for speach recognition.

    • I assume the author intended this to be humorous, and to fish out lots of eager moderators who've clearly never trained aikido...

      It's true that with good training, aikido (and other martial arts that involve wristlocks) will increase your wrist flexibility and strength. I've been training these things for years, and also play the piano as well as typing lots, and I've never encountered serious wrist problems. After a while, I even developed a reputation for having exceptionally bendy wrists amongst my peers, so I got to be the first guy anyone new tried them on -- if they worked on me, they worked on everyone.

      Everything was great, until one day an overenthusiastic training partner slammed a wristlock on a bit too hard. My wrist still worked afterwards, but was obviously badly weakened, probably due to a connective tissue injury. I've been forced to give up training stuff I love for well over a year, while I let the wrist recover. After all, if it goes, I can't drive to work or type when I get there, and that's not a risk I'm prepared to take.

      Sorry to go all serious, but while the parent post was amusing, I think it's important to avoid misleading people, just in case anyone goes out and starts doing this stuff after reading it.

      • Re:Mod this up as Funny... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by neo ( 4625 )
        I wasn't being humourous. You're situation is not normal and most people will not have this type of injury practicing Aikido.

        There are risks in all physical activities, and Aikido is no exception. Arts like Ju Jitsu have much higher injury rates, and there are "softer" and "harder" forms of Aikido.

        In short, YMMV, but Aikido is a great way to help your wrists...
        • You're situation is not normal and most people will not have this type of injury practicing Aikido.

          Of course not; I didn't intend to suggest that they did. However, it's only fair to point out those risks if you're seriously suggesting it as a possible preventative treatment for CTS.

          Arts like Ju Jitsu have much higher injury rates, and there are "softer" and "harder" forms of Aikido.

          Actually, speaking as someone with many years of background in several aikido and JJ styles, I can testify that aikido (aside from the really soft styles) has a significantly higher rate of serious injuries. But I digress; the point about injury risk is valid in either case.

    • Get out, get active. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BlueFrog ( 104460 )
      after about 5 years at the keyboard (college, plus a couple years of full-time programming & posting to /.) I started noticing problems with my hands and wrists. (Tingling, stiffness, dull pain, etc.)

      As soon as I started weight training, it all evaporated. I make sure to do some stretching (it's become something I just kinda do while I'm thinking), and I get out to the gym three nights a week. (Soon to be joined by weekly hocky games.)

      There are a bunch of us here at work that type for a living. I've noticed that the guys who are in good shape (we've got a few ex-motocross riders) don't suffer from RSI. I have a friend who's a physical trainer, and she's helped a lot of people with wrist/CT problems just by getting them to do a little strength training on their wrists. My pet theory: RSI & CT seem to be caused by overuse of underpowered muscles. Typing isn't stressful enough to make your arms stronger, but it is stressful enough to cause strain and eventual damage to over-worked muscles. Beef up, and you might avoid the problem.

      There are several excercises that you can do to strengthen your wrists. My favorite is:

      1. Tie a weight (5 lbs or so) to the end of a string, and tie the string to the middle of a 2-foot pole. (I use a cut-off hockey stick, and a small milk jug for the weight.)
      2. Hold the pole in front of you with both hands, palms down, with the string hanging between them.
      3. Now, reel in the weight. Turn the pole away from you until the weight comes all the way up. Then turn the pole toward you untill the weight goes all the way down and back again. Repeat.
      You can do this with your arms resting on your knees, or train your shoulders and posture by doing it standing.

      I'm fully aware that strength isn't the only factor in RSI and CT. But anything that trains strength and flexibility seems to help. Good luck, all!

  • RTFA!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by E-Rock ( 84950 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:41PM (#2804897) Homepage
    Or opinion in this case. She was given a special job to help accomidate her 'disability' but she bitched about that one too. Then her employer said, ok, bye-bye.

    Which of course she responded to by filing a lawsuit.

  • Carpel Sindrome Prevention Exercises (Score:3, Interesting)

    by andres32a ( 448314 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:42PM (#2804905) Homepage
    There are several excerises for the prevention ff the Carpel Tunnel Sindrome Here. [ctsplace.com]
    Anybody who spends lots of time in front the computer should check that link
  • The article simply says that in this case, the woman was not disabled to the point she could not perform her daily tasks. It explicitly says:

    The ruling does not mean that anyone with carpal tunnel syndrome or similar partial disabilities is automatically excluded from protection by the ADA. But it probably will make such claims harder to prove, since the court makes clear that disability must affect a range of manual tasks or duties.

    I wonder if the court has a list of manual tasks/duties that if you cannot perform, constitute being disabled.

  • The Case Is Not Over (Score:3, Informative)

    by Artagel ( 114272 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:43PM (#2804916) Homepage
    This is not a final victory for either the employer or the employee. The employee had walked into the Supreme Court with a grant of summary judgment (victory without trial). The case is just being remanded for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's clarification.

    In its brief on the merits, petitioner asks us to reinstate the District Court's grant of summary judgment to petitioner on the manual task issue. In its petition for certiorari, however, petitioner did not seek summary judgment; it argued only that the Court of Appeals' reasons for granting partial summary judgment to respondent were unsound. This Court's Rule 14(1)(a) provides: "Only the questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court." The question whether petitioner was entitled to summary judgment on the manual task issue is therefore not properly before us. See Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 129--130 (1954).

    Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment granting partial summary judgment to respondent and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  • The decision doesn't say that carpel tunnel syndrome isn't a disability. They just said that you can't just look at a person's fitness to work to decide whether they are disabled. You have to look at what the person can do, what they can't, etc. In this case, the woman couldn't do a couple of things (like hold her arms out), but could do some other things.

    This decision just means that if you can't do one thing, but could do something else, it's not your employer's responsibility to accommodate you -- it's your responsibility to find a job that you can do. I don't think this really changes things for people who have disabilities (e.g., blindness) which would require accommodation in almost all circumstances. And it certainly doesn't single out carpel tunnel as not being a disability. If you had a case of carpel tunnel that made it difficult for you to do most jobs, ADA would still apply.

    -Esme

  • Carpal tunnel history (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hubie ( 108345 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:45PM (#2804932)
    Does anyone know the history of this disability? I have always wondered why it has become such a problem in the last 10 years when there have been typing pools around for more than 100 years.

    Maybe this confirms my thinking that the mouse is an ergonomic nightmare and one should stay away from GUI-centric editors and do it all on the keyboard.

  • poah man's prevention (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@@@tru7h...org> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:46PM (#2804944) Homepage
    Pick yourself up a set of baoding balls [wle.com]. Other popular hand excercisers work, like those squishy things or even playing with a deck of cards, but these balls are immediatley recognizable to a lot of people and are a lot of fun to play with to boot.

    There's no reason to even let CTS become an issue to you; work out your hand while you're sitting there mulling over a piece of code and not only will it make your hands feel a lot more nimble, it'll sooth the inflammation that causes that numb feeling.

    I have no personal investment in these things, this isn't a plug. Just something I started doing once my fingers got numb one day and the effect was nearly immediate, my hand felt better within a few hours.

    For the link dependent, here [dencity.com] is another person saying pretty much the same thing (with some other ideas, which I'm not exactly prepared to try out ;).

    • That second link has a few sentences that concern me a bit:

      My intuition led me into a Chinese goods store, and the store manager, who saw me holding my arm in pain, told me he knew just what I needed!


      He handed me a set of Baoding Balls used in Qi Gong. I twirled the jade balls maybe three times in my left hand, then fell to the ground in pain. I knew these were just what I needed; an answer to an unspoken prayer.


      Errr? Is this person just really masochistic or is the answer to CTS supposed to be twirling little oriental balls in our hands in order to feel terrible pain?

      (~OT: That evil guy in Akazukin ChaCha must have pretty bad CTS as he's always twiddling his balls.)
  • The Supreme Court takes the position that a disability is not a disability if it can be accomodated for. Ie, you are not considered disabled with diabetes, if you can take insulin. If an accomodation will work, then you don't need accomodation.


    But, the ADA test is still if the disability affects major life acitivities, not just working.


    Many states have a different definition for disability. In Mass, if you are injured on the job, you are automatically considered disabled.


    Of course, the definition for disability is always different. SSDI defines disbility different from the ADA which is different from the state version of the ADA which is different from workers comp. definition of disability which is different from an insurance companies definition of disability.

  • causes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kallahar ( 227430 ) <kallahar@quickwired.com> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:48PM (#2804952) Homepage
    I read an article a while back that claimed that the cause of most carpal tunnel syndrome was the use of the mouse rather than the keyboard.

    From personal experience being a programming who has used dvorak for 3 years, and using as many keyboard shortcuts as possible, I've never had a problem with carpal tunnel.

  • Inconvienenced or disabled. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @02:49PM (#2804961) Homepage Journal
    The courts are being used to finally stop the abuse of the ADA. It should interesting to see what happens when the "compulsive behaviour" abuses make it to the court.

    Essentially they are stating, theres a big difference between being disabled and inconvienenced. The law was meant to help the truly disabled, not those who are lazy, or have good lawyers. (and I won't go into to alcholics)
  • On the one hand, the person has a disability. That seems pretty obvious. It's a disability that prevented them from doing their job. We seem to be all agreed on this. Most people are trained for 10+ years to do a specific job, and that is typically their sole source of income. At this point, we run into problems.


    Sure, the person can cook. What with? You can't live on thin air alone, and if you change career tracks, you're often faced with massively expensive education to get the bits of paper you need. Oh, and education means lots of writing (which is painful for someone with CTS).


    So, no job, no prospect of getting another job in the same field, and no prospect of being able to change fields.


    Essentially, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is legal to abandon someone to a life of welfare, which WE have to pay for, because THEY don't want the political hastle involved in actually providing any kind of support.


    Mind you, this isn't the first time. They ruled that a pilot who was legally blind was not disabled, because the person could fly an aircraft, even though the company the pilot flew for had sacked them, for being legally blind, which the Supreme Court then ruled was not discriminatory, because the person had a disability that prevented them from working.


    The world is a crazy place, at times. The rest of the time, it's a complete loony bin.

    • Damn mod this person up.

      Most career people their job is their life. If you have to switch jobs you have to be retrained, and still need to take extra precautions about your illness. To say that a person's job is not their life is a slap in the face by Judges who are appointed for life.
  • Two hours ago you were bashing opportunistic lawyers in regard to the German SuSE case, and now you are whining because the supreme court said that the same type of ambulance chaser lawyer can't sue over a "disability" that is minor in comparison to real disabilities.

    This decision is a victory for freedom, and limited government interference. It's also a victory for people with real disabilities.
  • You cannot fire an alcoholic, since he/she is 'disabled'. But if a programmer or other computer worker cannot use their hands, that isn't a disability.

  • Factors to consider (Score:2, Informative)

    by infernalC ( 51228 )
    • If you read the court opinion you will find that CTS was only the first in a string of problems, including neck and back injury due to oiling the finish of cars on the assembly line.
    • Toyota and the plaintiff (let's not say victim, we don't know for sure what happened) disagreed over the work attendance of the plantiff. I find it difficult to believe that she had no record of her attendance; I get this on my paystub, and since she was probably hourly, she should have carbon copies of her time sheet.
    • The plaintiff was only seen by Toyota's doctors.
    • Toyota's physicians actually ordered her to stop working (or so it seems).

    I think one piece of wisdom we can garner from this case is that it is important to keep good records of when you worked, what your medical conditions are, and your employer's evaluations. Perhaps it is good to be evaluated by impartial physicians as well.

  • Valid Decision, Sucks to be Plaintiff (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cube farmer ( 240151 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @03:02PM (#2805047) Homepage

    If memory serves, this woman had worked for Toyota in an assembly plant for a number of years. Over time, her carpal tunnel syndrome developed and resulted in significant absenteeism. After UAW-Management mediation, Toyota reassigned her to a job that was less physically demanding, e.g., inspecting the paint on new cars. While at that task, her attendance record improved dramatically. Unfortunately, after a time Toyota management again reassigned her to assembly work in circumstances that aggravated her carpal tunnel syndrome and again resulted in absenteeism due to chronic pain. I don't recall whether she quit or was fired prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

    The Supremes have ruled that Toyota is not obligated to provide a job for this woman, nor to provide reasonable accommodation in any existing job, because the carpal tunnel syndrome she suffers from does not significantly limit "major life activities" -- meaning, she can still drive, care for her own hygiene, hold a less physically demanding job, etc.

    In my view, Toyota is both a good guy and a bad guy here. After making a reasonable accommodation by transfering its employee to the paint shop, it then put her back in the circumstance that was a significant factor in the development of her carpal tunnel syndrome. Initially nice, then heartless. However, Toyota is in the right about asserting no responsibility to employ her because, as noted by the Supremes, its former employee is perfectly capable of choosing a less physically demanding career path, with equal if not better economic opportunities.

    This is similar to a construction foreperson saying she will not hire me for the physically demanding job of digging trenches if I suffer from obesity, chronic back pain, and uncontrolled hypertension. I'm simply not suited to the job.

    That being said, it sucks to be the plaintiff.

  • I'm confused. Isn't this the same court that said Casey could join the PGA tour with his bad legs?

    I guess the supremes must be frustated golfers who never worked a line.
  • Since we're talking CTS (Carpal tunnel), anyone used Chinese Exercise balls to relieve pain or provide alternative motion for wrist and finger muscles? For those who don't know, they look a lot cooler than a dirty stress ball. I just ordered a pair and want to try them for my CTS that has been getting worse lately.
  • I've got a nagging pain in my wrists due to repetetive motions and it may even be Carpal Tunnel. Even if it was considered a disability, I hardly think that I could receive any compensation other than the monthly ammount I pay for premium binary newsgroup access.

    Gotta go. There's a massive flood on alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bluebird.reposts.

    Ow. Ow. Ouch.
  • ...there's a simple fix for those of us who may be in the early stages of carpel tunnel and at least pain relief for those who already have it: go get yourself a keyboard & pointing device that doesn't screw up your wrists. Personally, I used to do email tech support - over 300 emails in 8 hours (yes, some were scripted; even still, my wrists/hands were NUMB at the end of the day.) The fix? $170 keyboard - Kinesis Ergo (www.kinesis-ergo.com) countoured keyboard. Yes, it took 3 weeks to get used to it, and people looked @ me funny in the beginning - but hell, we're IT people, we expect that. My wrists stopped hurting after about 2 months of using that keyboard. (No I don't work for kinesis) - In fact, I'm eyeing the DataHand (www.datahand.com) for my next keyboard...

  • It's a Workman's Comp case... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HardCase ( 14757 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @03:15PM (#2805122)
    An Anonymous Coward writes: "It turns out that the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't think Carpel Tunnel Syndrome is a real disability.


    In fact, the article clearly states:

    The ruling does not mean that anyone with carpal tunnel syndrome or similar partial disabilities is automatically excluded from protection by the ADA. But it probably will make such claims harder to prove, since the court makes clear that disability must affect a range of manual tasks or duties.


    Well, for starters, the Court did not rule that carpal tunnel syndrom is not a disability. They ruled that the woman in question was not disabled from carpal tunnel syndrome.
    The law already makes clear just what this snippet from the article says. I think that in many cases, employers and insurance companies are concerned with the political backlash that may come from a close interpretation (that is, applying the law as written) of the law.


    Nonetheless, the law is clear that you aren't disabled if you can't perform your job...there is a much broader test to be satisfied to determine a disability.


    Certainly there would be a big bonanza for the plaintiff if an ADA violation was proved, but I wonder if this would have been more appropriately handled as a Workman's Compensation case? After all, she claimed that her injury came from a work-related situation...that seems tailor-made for a Workman's Comp case.


    Of course, the cynical side of my must point out there there is a lot more money to be had from an ADA lawsuit...


    -h-

  • I'm sure this will be good news to my mother, who had surgery for carpal tunnel in the 70's. I guess it was just all in her head.
  • Earlier this year was the Post Office case where the court determined that facilities to accomodate handicapped individuals at the local post office were cost prohibitive and so didn't have to be provided. Then there was I believe a case related to a new definition of occupational disabilities. This is the next.

    This court has made it its personal crusade to tear down the ADA as well as most or all occupational disability statutes. Rehnquist basically said as much, the disability regulations are frivolous.
  • should get a better keyboard, mouse, and desk chair. The responsibility for PREVENTING this condition is yours. If your employer won't spring for the stuff you need, get it yourself, or get a new job. This condition is PREVENTABLE. It's your job to look after your tools. If you type, your hands are your tools.
    • I've been working with computers for 15 years AND playing with computers at hime for 14 1/2 years with no wrist problem. What's my secret? I take breaks from constant typing/mousing. If my wrists are tired, I browse source listings, go to the john, grab my 15th Coke, and wait until my hands are rested before going back to the keyboard/mouse. Usually (not always), if you don't abuse your body, it won't abuse you.
  • ...isn't my wrists but in my hands. What gets me is on the back of the hand abive the wrist, straight across from the base of my double-jointed thumbs (where the veins usually meet). I think it has to do with the way I mouse. I mouse with my fingertips, not my palm. My palm isn't rested on the mouse but is instead held up by my fingertips. I think that's what does it to me.

  • It was a ruling against one womans case of CTS (Score:3, Informative)

    by CamMac ( 140401 ) <PvtCam@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @03:35PM (#2805272)
    RTFA

    Congress intended the existence of a disability to be determined in such a case-by-case manner.
    ...
    An individualized assessment of the effect of an impairment is particularly necessary when the impairment is one such as carpal tunnel syndrome, in which symptoms vary widely from person to person.

    It was not decided that the Americans with Disabilities Act didn't protect CTS. It was decided that in this woman's case, her specific form of CTS wasn't a disability under the ADA. In order for someone with CTS to be protected by the ADA, their form of CTS must "severely limit major life actives."

    Rather, the central inquiry must be whether the claimant is unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people's daily lives. Also without support is the Sixth Circuit's assertion that the question whether an impairment constitutes a disability is to be answered only by analyzing the impairment's effect in the workplace.
    ...
    Moreover, because the manual tasks unique to any particular job are not necessarily important parts of most people's lives, occupation-specific tasks may have only limited relevance to the manual task inquiry

    That speaks for itself. Just because your impairment won't let you perform your job, its not a disability, and your not protected by the ADA. So, we return to CTS. For many of us, it WOULD impair MAJOR life activity. IANAL, however I think that you would have a hard time of it in court.

    --Cam
  • ...or beavis and butthead get smarter:

    Beavis:
    'Uh-huh-huh, you said "repetative motion", your honour...uh-huh-huh-huh.'

    Butthead:
    'Is that why they wear those robes, Beavis?'

    Beavis:
    Well, eeeheeeheeheee, we submit to the court...

    Butthead:
    Huh-huh, you said submit.

    (SMACK)

    Beavis:
    Quiet! That one man's "repetitave motion" is another man's life activity... Just look at my associate....

    Butthead:
    You said Ass...Hey, shut up Beavis, don't make me kick your ass again.

    {and no, I did not read the article, seeing as +4 posts explained all I needed to know quite well, thank you}

    .

  • Facts vs. Law (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DRO0 ( 252117 )
    Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that the fact could very well be that the woman had such a bad case of CTS that she can't in fact do everyday stuff well or at all.

    The problem from the SC's POV is that the federal court used faulty legal reasoning in deciding for the woman, the faulty reasoning being that the "disability" has to extend beyond the scope of work-related duties.

    So in U.S. law, it's not if you win or lose, it's how you win or lose that counts. In this case the SC said the federal court screwed up and misinterpreted a law, irrespective of the facts surrounding the case.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close