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

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

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:court's opinion vs. insurance company's

[Masem]

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.

Like he said, read the decision

[GMontag]

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."

Re:court's opinion vs. insurance company's

[SirWhoopass]

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.

Valid Decision, Sucks to be Plaintiff

[cube farmer]

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.

The ruling isn't, but the headline is.

[fizbin]

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.