Feds Redefine Disability Differently to Limit Benefits

The Oakland Press

By Jerry Wolffe
January 2, 2011

It appears the definition of disability is being manipulated by government agencies to save money by denying benefits to some.

The definition has become more restrictive in its application during the past 40 years and, as a result, is having a negative impact on an untold number of lives.

In the 1970s, before the Americans with Disabilities Act, the concept of disability referred to an underlying physical or mental condition. Someone with leg paralysis would have been considered disabled solely on his or her physical condition.

Today, disability is seen as a complex interaction between a person and the environment.

The same person with a leg paralysis may be considered disabled by the physical impairment as well as barriers in the environment that prevent full social participation.

In the past, the goal was to provide support through financial or educational assistance to those with disabilities.

Today, the emphasis has shifted to supporting independence and promoting involvement of the 49.7 million disabled in all aspects of society by providing them a chance to acquire marketable skills to live independently.

This is great, but also is a double-edged sword.

The 15 or so state institutions where those with disabilities used to spend their lives are gone. Now, they live in group homes, their own homes or with others and combine resources to pay the rent.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 requires all public school districts to provide accommodations in classrooms so students with disabilities have the tools they need to learn. The days of isolation and segregation are gone.

Accommodations range from large-print books to aides who help those with mobility impairments get around school buildings.

Legal fight brewing

In mid-2010, Oakland Schools — the intermediate school district in charge of the county’s 28 school districts — decided to stop providing accommodations to disabled students in private schools. Under federal laws, public school districts must pay for accommodations for disabled students in private and parochial schools.

The reason given by one local official was the cost of such accommodations. The denial of accommodation is now under review.

Other intermediate school districts, I fear, may follow Oakland’s lead and not provide accommodations to private school students unless there is a legal challenge.

Attorney Richard Bernstein of Farmington Hills says he will file a federal lawsuit in February to require Oakland Schools to resume providing accommodations to disabled students in private schools.

I just don’t understand how the intermediate district can try to balance its budget on the backs of disabled children.

Act defines ‘disability’

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 made the definition of a disability clear.

It includes someone who has a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity; a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.”

But this definition is not used equally in various daily life activities or in government programs.

The most glaring example is the Social Security Administration.

A friend recently found he did not qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) even though he has severe diabetes and is having surgery this holiday to remove part of his foot. It is his second foot amputation.

The administration’s definition of disability depends on whether an applicant for SSDI can do any type of work.

I suspect that many people who can’t find jobs because of the economy have tried to get on SSDI.

As a result, the administration has slammed the doors to legitimate applicants by making it nearly impossible for those with significant “life impairments” to receive SSDI, which is based on a worker having paid Social Security taxes.

It does not matter if a worker can’t do a job he or she previously had. What matters is if the worker can do any job, according to the Social Security Administration.

So my reporter friend is not disabled because he, for example, is a smart fellow and could be a telemarketer and live on a minimum-wage job after paying into Social Security for decades. I am not trying to minimize those who are telemarketers because I believe having any honest job is honorable.

But I think “being able to do any work” isn’t fair. Maybe I was foolish to believe equality and opportunity for all was part of the American fabric.

The younger you are too, the more difficult it is to get SSDI.

“If you are a younger person — under age 50 — we generally do not consider that your age will seriously affect your ability to adjust to other work,” according to the Social Security website.

The administration also doesn’t consider whether you would be hired for a job, whether there’s a job opening, whether you would be required to move, whether you want to do a particular job or whether you have certification or a license to do the work.

Now, let’s get real. Is that really realistic for someone who has spent thousands of dollars to adapt a home so it is wheelchair accessible or has a wife or partner with a job?

For too many who are disabled — and you know when someone is significantly impaired when you see it — the government is saying tough luck.

When did America lose its compassion and why? Wall Street won, eh?

Sometimes, I fear for the future of not only the disabled but all 309 million Americans.