Editor's Message

Subscribe | Advertise | About Us | Contact Us | Home

July 2004

By Sarah Schmelling

Stepping Forward
In May, the Supreme Court made a decision that in some ways can be seen as one small step for a man, and a slightly bigger step for the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

The question being disputed was whether a private citizen has the right to sue a state for violating the ADA. George Lane, who uses a wheelchair, was required to appear in a case at the Polk County courthouse in Tennessee. With no elevator or ramp to assist him, he was forced to crawl up the courthouse steps. When the court recessed and then returned, he refused to crawl again or be carried, and was therefore arrested and jailed for failure to appear. He then attempted to sue the state of Tennessee for $100,000 for what he referred to as humiliating treatment that violated the ADA.

While the Court’s decision—that a state can be sued for ADA violation—can be seen in some ways as a very positive change, for many disability advocates it is a half-hearted victory. It was an extremely close decision, 5 to 4, and the dissenting justices—William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas—were very vocal in arguing that people with disabilities have no constitutional right to have access to a courtroom without receiving external assistance. The decision came primarily because Justice Sandra Day O’Connor diverged from the opinion of her conservative colleagues and voted to support disability rights over states’ rights.

In a moving essay in The New York Times Magazine,¹ Harriet McBryde Johnson, a lawyer who uses a power wheelchair, wrote that the discussion here should not be over whether cases like this have the right to be heard, but over what can be done about the problem of access to public buildings in general. And while she welcomes the Court’s decision and says a contrary ruling would have been devastating, she takes the case further. “What if the issue is not freedom from lockup or access to a courthouse, polling place, or public school?” she asks. “What if it’s about access to a state-run museum exhibit or concert? In such a case, the current court might not allow an ADA suit against a state, no matter how simple a remedy or how unreasonable the conduct.” Her point reminds us that even when big achievements are made, we still need to evaluate what more can be done.

Several articles in this issue of Rehab Management address steps of a much different kind. There are steps to take to create a new type of business, whether it is a bariatrics program (“A New Way of Life”), or an ergonomics specialty (“Getting Comfortable”); there are also steps you can take to further your education and career (see “The ABCs of Continuing Ed”, and “Setting Your Course.” In addition, we can see that eliminating steps from business processes can greatly enhance productivity (see “PT Practice Do-Over”). The kinds of hurdles these authors discuss may not be equivalent to the grand staircase of a courthouse building, but in the path to knowledge, every little move forward helps.

--Sarah Schmelling
cwolski@medpubs.com

Reference
1. Johnson HM. Stairway to justice. Available at: NY Times. Accessed June 2, 2004.

LOOKING FOR EXPERT ADVICE?

Experts here are available to answer all your questions!

Please contact us for more information about this feature, or to become an expert.

MEDIA CENTER

Interactive Media

Resources

	Calendar
	Consumer Resources
	Media Kit
	Advertiser Index EAB Reprints Submit an Article

ADDITIONAL ONLINE RESOURCES

Allied Media
24X7mag Clinical Lab Products (CLP) Orthodontic Products The Hearing Review Hearing Review Products Rehab Management		Physical Therapy Products Plastic Surgery Practice Imaging Economics RT Magazine Sleep Review