While many readers spoke in favor of the 2-year duration license, some feel as though the change is unsupportive to disabled persons who wish to lead active and free lifestyle in hunting.

My question is, why not demand a biannual renewal from every person who obtains a hunting license in the state? It seems as though it would be a wise choice to prevent accidents and prove competency over time. Currently, the non-disabled hunting permits are good for as long as the hunter remains an Oregon resident.

Read the full commentary here.

Fair Mobility has followed trends in mobility and hunting. Learn more!

The balloon is called Serena’s Song. It was originally named for Serena, a young girl who was invited to her first ride to the sky at the age of 2. From then on, her father, Gray Waldman worked to make this a possibility for everyone across the US.

In 1985 he invested in his own hot air balloon and worked alongside his partner, Phil Gray, to build the program that would eventually go on tour. The program has since been approved by the Federal Aviation Committee, and has since given more than 12,000 people across the country a chance to travel to heights never before thought to be possible. Waldman and Gray partnered up with ATC, a company that managed public transportation services, to help disseminate information about the balloon, and to secure funds for taking the adventure on national tours.

Here is a snippet from an article published on Enabled Online. It quotes Waldman, who I think sums it up best.

It takes 105,000 cubic feet of hot air to make Serena’s Song sing. The balloon is ten stories tall, and it climbs 100 feet on a tether that keeps it linked to the ground. Waldman says there’s never been an accident, but there have been many screams of joy. “Kids see it inflate and their mouths open. Then I say, who’s gonna be first.” Walman says the young ones are usually awe struck when they get strapped into the gondola and the sun is shining through the balloon’s fabric.

The 2005 tour dates went from April to November, and they’re done for this year. In 2005, they travelled to many states including, Florida, Ohia, North Carolina, Illinois, Texas, Kansas, California, and Arizona.

Here is a picture of the crew in Holland, Michigan on their last tour. From left to right are: Jim Long: ATC President and CEO, Gary Waldman: Serena’s Song Owner, Phil Gray: Serena’s Song Pilot, Dave Galanis: ATC Senior VP.

The report also gives details about the Civil Rights Division’s mediation and outreach efforts. It’s written in plain English and provides valuable insight into the government’s efforts on behalf of individuals with disabilities. You can access the full report at www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/newsltr0905.htm.

Ziggi over at Wheelchair Diffusion caught wind of the TankChair - a comfy-looking powerchair with monstrous tank treads!

According to tankchair.com, the creator of the chair developed the Tank Chair so that his wife could maneuver around better in the great outdoors. Here is an excerpt from the site:

The TankChair started a little over 2 years ago. My wife, five kids and I were in a cabin in the woods. To our surprise a herd of elk came walking through our camp. My kids, having never seen an elk before, woke up and rushed outside. My wife got in her power chair and wanted to see them too. As we went outside the elk had moved on about 100 yard and you couldn’t see the through the dense tress. We started walking to get closer but had to keep stopping and help my wife get her wheelchair unstuck. Anyone who has a loved one in a wheelchair knows what a pain in the nether regions that can be.

The TankChair reminds me of an older promo video for the iBOT in which the iBOT drives over small logs and sand within a demonstration at an expo center. As staged as that was, it gave me a little rush just like seeing the TankChair does. Although Ziggi brought up the necessary question regarding the giant - “how do you transfer into it?” - it’s refreshing to know that minds are at work developing a tool that could reconnect or simply connect wheelers to something as circumstantially fantastical as hiking. And hopefully those people will catch wind of it.

Below I’ve posted an interesting outline of two Massachusetts cases that demonstrate the circumstances that may be considered when an employee requests specific accomodations for his or her disability. At issue in each was whether an employer is required to accommodate a disabled employee by allowing the employee to work at a location other than the workplace preferred by the employer.

The two stories show how and why the two courts reached divergent results. The holding in one case was that an employer violated the law by not allowing an employee to work at her home. And the ruling in the other case was that an employer properly denied an employee’s request that he be allowed to work at a different company facility that was only 15 miles away from the employee’s normal workplace.

The review of the cases sheds light on the fact-based and case-sensitive process by which many of these issues are resolved both personally and legally.

Since this site requires registration and subscription, I’m posting the article here.

Originally published by: Mondaq.com

United States: Recent Massachusetts Cases Illustrate Fact-intensive Process for Determining Whether a Disabled Employee´s Request for Accommodation is Reasonable
20 October 2005
Article by Mr David C. Henderson

Most experienced managers already appreciate that, whenever a handicapped or disabled employee requests a workplace accommodation to perform an essential job function, the employer is required to provide the accommodation only when it is reasonable. Sometimes more difficult to understand is that the necessary determination of reasonableness always is dependent on the individual employee’s particular job responsibilities and circumstances as they relate to his or her particular request. Another way of saying this is that the process of determining whether a requested accommodation is reasonable is always going to be “fact-intensive and case-specific.

Two recent Massachusetts cases illustrate this well. At issue in each was whether an employer is required to accommodate a disabled employee by allowing the employee to work at a location other than the workplace preferred by the employer. For reasons explained below, the two courts reached divergent results. The holding in one case was that an employer violated the law by not allowing an employee to work at her home. And the ruling in the other case was that an employer properly denied an employee’s request that he be allowed to work at a different company facility that was only 15 miles away from the employee’s normal workplace. These two cases thus offer to managers broad insights into how courts analyze the employer’s obligations in this area of the law.

The first of these two rulings was on June 10, 2005 in Smith v. Bell Atlantic et al. In Smith, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the lower court had properly determined from evidence at trial that the employer had failed to reasonably accommodate a handicapped employee when it refused to allow her to perform a substantial amount of her work at home. The employee suffered from post polio syndrome, was paralyzed in one leg, suffered diminished use of the other leg, and relied on a scooter for mobility. Although she held the position of “second level manager,” the employee testified at trial that her essential job functions were simply to analyze data, generate reports, and serve as a resource for others in the office. Further, she also testified that other second-level managers who were not disabled were allowed to do substantial amounts of their work from home.

On the basis of such evidence (and notwithstanding contrary evidence presented by the employer), the Appeals Court in Smith upheld the lower court’s ruling against the employer, finding that the jury legitimately could have concluded that uninterrupted attendance was not an essential function of this particular employee’s job. According to the Appeals Court, allowing this particular employee to use modern technology (e.g., emails, faxes, etc.) to do substantial amounts of work at home therefore was a reasonable accommodation.

But again, this result in Smith should not be construed as an indication that off-site work arrangements must always be afforded as “accommodations.” Illustrating the “fact-intensive and case specific” analysis that instead is called for by state and federal disability laws is Mulloy v. Acushnet Company, a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts only ten days after the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the employee in Smith. In Mulloy, the District Court awarded summary judgment to the employer after determining that, in the particular circumstances of that case, the employer violated neither state nor federal disability law when it refused to allow the plaintiff to work full time from an alternative company facility only 15 miles away.

In Mulloy, the plaintiff was a senior electrical engineer who suffered from respiratory ailments allegedly exacerbated by a worksite that, at least in part, was not a “meticulously clean environment.” And as in Smith, the plaintiff in Mulloy claimed that he could acceptably do his job from an off-site location simply by taking advantage of available communications tools (e.g., a webcam). But from the District Court’s standpoint, the similarity ended there between the case before it and Smith (a case explicitly cited in the District Court’s opinion). After analyzing the pertinent job description and duties of its plaintiff, the District Court found more persuasive the employer’s evidence showing that actual physical presence at the worksite was an essential aspect of the particular job at issue. As the District Court noted, “many courts have recognized physical attendance in the workplace is an essential function of most jobs.”

Also notable in Mulloy is that the District Court seemed to take a different procedural approach to determining the weight it would give to certain evidence from the employee. Unlike the Appeals Court in Smith, the District Court ruled in Mulloy that the employee’s own testimony, unsupported by testimony from other employees, could not be sufficient to rebut the employer’s evidence showing that an essential job function involved actually being physically present at the particular worksite. In short, as the District Court stated, it was “reluctant to allow employees to define the essential functions of their positions based solely on their personal viewpoint and experience.” The District Court thus ruled in favor of the employer because “an employer’s judgment regarding the essential functions of a job, though not dispositive, is afforded deference.”

Smith and Mulloy illustrate the continuing complexity in this area of disability law, the fact-intensive and case-specific inquiry always called for when a workplace accommodation is requested, and the importance of obtaining sound legal advice whenever a manager questions how to respond.

This advisory was prepared by David C. Henderson, co-chair of Nutter’s Employment, Labor and Benefits practice group.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.”

Distributed by RAMP (the Restore Access to Mobility Partnership), it attempts to outline new “interim rules” being imposed by CMS. I would have liked to report the progress being outlined here, but the syntax they use is utterly confusing.

It’s almost as if the public isn’t meant to understand the maneuvers being implemented.

The Restore Access to Mobility Partnership is a coalition of organizations and companies representing power wheelchair providers and manufacturers. Its members include: the American Association of Homecare; Invacare Corporation; the MED Group; Mobility Products Unlimited, LLC; Pride Mobility; The SCOOTER Store; and Sunrise Medical.

One would think that an organization such as this would drop the incomprehensible syntax of the bohemeth organization that is CMS, so that their patients, customers, and supporters would have a clue as to what’s going on.

I was unable to find the website for RAMP. If anyone knows the address, your friends at Fair Mobility would love to have it on file.

A new vehicle with the full mobility package costs about $30,000. Previously, most ramp-equipped vehicles have been minivans because of their size and sliding door features. Paul Edwards, Engineering Manager for IMS, noted that the two things that make the Scion xB attractive are its style and its price.

A brand new Toyota Scion xB (without the mobility package) is priced at $15,000; much less than a typical minivan.

Detroit News reported the new vehicle and described the process by which they make the car wheelchair accessible.

• Rear hatch door is equipped with the power-opening motors from the Toyota Sienna minivan.
• Rear bumper is revised and integrated into the rear hatch for a smoother look.
• IMS lowers the xB’s interior floor and installs a power ramp.
• Rear seat is removed to secure the wheelchair.
• Power swivel driver’s seat.

IMS is also offering rear-entry minivans in its line of products. This feature is helpful in that an accessibility vehicle has more freedom in where it can be parked, without worrying about room on the side to let down the ramp.

However, the downside to the IMS minivan being equipped with rear-entry access is that there are two additional rear passenger seats between the ramp access space and the drivers seat. If the driver needs to transfer him or herself to the driver’s seat from the wheelchair, this would be a problematic obstacle.

The Scion xB has only 2 seats; the driver and the passenger, so that access from the rear of the vehicle is problem-free.

Stuart Rogers of Toronto wrote to The Star:

“Well, what about those electric scooters that disabled people use? They have no licence plates, usually no headlights or tail-lights, and barrel along the roads and sidewalks taking up three times the space of a Segway. Yet we all somehow accommodate them. Provincial bureaucrats and city lawyers don’t ban them as ‘motor vehicles,’ in spite of the obvious fact they are vehicles with motors.”

Early this morning, Star staff member Helen Henderson wrote a rebuttal to the sentiment expressed by Rogers. She poignantly picked out an underlying message in the debate:

“But behind the righteous indignation of Segway boosters protesting Toronto’s policy toward those who use electric wheelchairs or scooters is a shadier subtext, a type of implied resentment toward people with disabilities.

“There is an unwritten school of thought that deep down believes people with disabilities really do have a choice. If they just tried a little harder, they could walk or talk or hear or see.”

According to Henderson, Joe Mihevc, head of the city’s disabilties issues committee called the targeting of electric wheelchairs and scooters in the Segway debate “a total red herring.”

“I find it almost crass to query the most vulnerable to promote something like that,” Mihevc said.