Carpal Tunnel Syndrome not a Disability

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.

Comments

Did anyone actually READ the judgement?

[Karen_Frito]

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.

What next

[epukinsk]

Guess we're going to be needing these 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.

-Erik

CT not proven to be a disability in THIS case....

[moniker_21]

"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.

I agree with the Supreme Court's point of view

[mrroot]

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.

RTFA!!

[E-Rock]

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.

no effect.

[www.sorehands.com]

The defintion for disability under an insurance plan is very different from the ADA. Usually under an insurance plan, it is the ability to do your job. But, read throught he insurance contract.