Patti's Blog - Advocate for Elders, People with Disabilities and Their Families

Jacksonville settles with feds on ADA violations

Excerpt from: News4Jax.com (click for full article)

 

The U.S. Justice Department has agreed to settle with the city of Jacksonville over dozens violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act at city buildings and property.

The agreement was reached under Project Civic Access, the Justice Department’s initiative to ensure that cities, towns and counties throughout the country comply with the ADA.

“Together, we are taking significant steps to ensure accessibility by focusing on accountability and responsibility,” said Mayor Alvin Brown. “I’m encouraged by the teamwork and support that we’ve enjoyed with the Justice Department and many other stakeholders so that our public buildings can be used and enjoyed by all in our community.”

EEOC to argue that disabled workers at Iowa turkey plant were abused and deserve damages

Excerpt from: The Washington Post (click for full article)

 

A now-defunct Texas company that put mentally disabled men to work at an Iowa turkey plant for decades is due in court to defend itself against allegations that it subjected the men to physical and verbal abuse.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Henry’s Turkey Service, of Goldthwaite, Texas, on behalf of 32 former workers whom it housed and oversaw while they worked at West Liberty Foods in West Liberty, Iowa. The commission is expected to seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against Henry’s for allegedly subjecting the men to abuse that “created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation,” court filings show.

Service dogs versus therapy dogs

Excerpt from: Understanding the ADA (click for full article)

 

One of the confusing issues out there is the difference between a service dog and a therapy dog and why it matters. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 (the sections of the federal regulation that apply to service animals for public entities and for places of public accommodations respectively), both define service animal in the same way. Under those regulations, a service animal is any dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. The work or task performed by the service animal has to be directly related to the handler’s disability. Id. The regulations go on to give examples of what such work or tasks may include. According to the regulations, such work or tasks may include but is not limited to: assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks; alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people are sounds; providing nonviolent protection or rescue work; pulling a wheelchair; assisting an individual during a seizure; alerting an individual to the presence of allergens; retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone; providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities; and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disability by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. Id. Very importantly, for purposes of this particular blog entry, the regulations go on to say that, “the crime deterrent effects of an animal’s presence and the provision o f emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.” Id. (emphasis added).

Service dogs versus therapy dogs

Excerpt from: Understanding the ADA (click for full article)

 

One of the confusing issues out there is the difference between a service dog and a therapy dog and why it matters. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 (the sections of the federal regulation that apply to service animals for public entities and for places of public accommodations respectively), both define service animal in the same way. Under those regulations, a service animal is any dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. The work or task performed by the service animal has to be directly related to the handler’s disability. Id. The regulations go on to give examples of what such work or tasks may include. According to the regulations, such work or tasks may include but is not limited to: assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks; alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people are sounds; providing nonviolent protection or rescue work; pulling a wheelchair; assisting an individual during a seizure; alerting an individual to the presence of allergens; retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone; providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities; and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disability by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. Id. Very importantly, for purposes of this particular blog entry, the regulations go on to say that, “the crime deterrent effects of an animal’s presence and the provision o f emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.” Id. (emphasis added).

Judges' lawsuit: Disability system 'in crisis'

Excerpt from: denverpost.com (click for full article)

 

Social Security's disability program is overwhelmed by so many claims that judges sometimes award benefits they might otherwise deny just to keep up with the flow of cases, according to a lawsuit filed by the judges themselves.

The Social Security Administration says the agency's administrative law judges should decide 500 to 700 disability cases a year. The agency calls the standard a productivity goal, but the lawsuit claims it is an illegal quota that requires judges to decide an average of more than two cases per workday.

"When the goals are too high, the easy way out is to pay the case," said Randall Frye, president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges and a judge in Charlotte, N.C. "Paying the case is a decision that might be three pages long. When you deny benefits, it's usually a 15- or 20-page denial that takes a lot more time and effort."

The lawsuit raises serious questions about the integrity of the disability hearing process by the very people in charge of running it. It comes as the disability program faces serious financial problems.

Attorney: Decision Overdue In Suit Challenging Medi-Cal Disabled Cuts

Excerpt from: Kitsap Sun (click for full article)

 

A federal judge is "about to decide" a case with large ramifications for the developmentally disabled community. William McLaughlin, an attorney representing The Arc of California, a national disabled-rights group, said a final ruling from U.S. District Court judge Morrison England is coming "any time now."

In a Jan. 24 hearing, McLaughlin argued for a preliminary injunction to halt the rate reductions. He contends a decision is overdue.

"We have not obtained any injunctive relief so far," McLaughlin said, though a federal judge had issued a stay for a period of time. That stay was lifted by Judge England in August, which means providers have been absorbing the cuts since then. And not very well, McLaughlin said.

"Those cuts are in effect," he said. "What it means is there is underfunding for services for the disabled, and that means reductions in staffing, reductions in salaries and benefits for the staff members who are still working."

The Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit claims that when hours are cut or programs curtailed, accessibility to care is diminished.

Provide the best service possible

Excerpt from: WLKM (click for full article)

 

A state administrative judge has sided with about half of 30 people with disabilities who said their services were illegally cut by the Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services of St. Joseph County.

The clients, who were represented by Farmington Hills-based attorney Patricia Dudek, said 25 percent, across-the-board cuts by the Centreville-based agency in January were unfairly and illegally implemented.

At issue was the number of hours for activities, co-op employment opportunities and other services for CMHSAS clients who are mentally or physically compromised.

Liz O’Dell, CMHSAS executive director, said she respects the judge’s decision and the agency will maintain its focus on providing the best service possible to its clients.

CMH services restored for some clients

Excerpt from: Sturgis Journal (click for full article)

 

A state administrative judge has sided with about half of 30 people with disabilities who say their services were illegally cut by a St. Joseph County agency.

Appeals filed by clients of the Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services of St. Joseph County were represented by Farmington Hills attorney Patricia Kefalas-Dudek, an authority on disability rights.

Kefalas-Dudek said 25 percent across-the-board cuts imposed on CMHSAS clients were unfairly and illegally implemented in January.

At issue was the number of hours for activities, co-op employment opportunities and other services for CMHSAS clients who are mentally or physically compromised. A number of those clients were served by Michigan Agency with Choice. The Sturgis agency has terminated its contract and the agreement with CMHSAS will end in early June.

Kefalas-Dudek said CMHSAS staff and board members insisted over the course of several months that the cuts were appropriate.

“It was always exceedingly clear that the cuts were illegally handled,” Kefalas-Dudek said in a press statement. “The fact that board members blindly followed their leader, at the expense of the people they are supposed to protect, is deeply troubling.”

Walmart Accused Of Violating Disabilities Act

Excerpt from: Disability Scoop (click for full article)

 

Federal regulators are suing Walmart for allegedly looking the other way while an employee with developmental disabilities was sexually harassed by a co-worker for years.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought the suit on behalf of Jamie Wells who has developmental disabilities and worked at an Akron, Ohio Walmart for more than 11 years.

A male co-worker subjected Wells to sexual harassment and inappropriate touching at the store between 2005 and 2011, according to the complaint filed in federal court. Even though managers were aware of the harassment, they did not take appropriate action, the EEOC said. What’s more, the suit indicates that Wells was fired three weeks after she complained about the conduct.

The EEOC is accusing the retail giant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in addition to lost wages and benefits.

Judge Rules Against Football Helmet Manufacturer

Excerpt from: New York Times (click for full article)

 

 

A jury in Colorado has found that Riddell, the country’s largest helmet manufacturer, was at fault for failure to adequately warn players wearing their football helmets about the dangers of potential concussions.

The company was ordered to pay several million dollars in damages to a 22-year-old man who was injured in 2008 while playing high school football.

The award, which came from the jury in Las Animas County District Court in Trinidad, Colo., early Saturday morning, is a rare victory for those injured while wearing football helmets. It could provide a prelude to a parallel case brought by N.F.L. retirees, who have also sued the company.

According to the verdict, Riddell is responsible for $3.1 million, or 27 percent of $11.5 million in damages that were awarded to Rhett Ridolfi, who sustained a head injury and was paralyzed on the left side of his body during a football drill in 2008.