Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Americans with Disabilities Act Litigation and Musculoskeletal-Related Impairments: Implications for Work Re-Entry

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was designed, in part, to assist in work re-entry for the disabled. ADA-related complaints that are more difficult to resolve and consequently reach the litigation stage may provide useful insights into the challenges associated with the re-integration of disabled workers into the workplace. The present study identified patterns of impairments and areas of dispute from all ADA litigation (n = 189) between 1990 to 1996. While HIV/AIDS was the most common single impairment category (18.8%), combined musculoskeletal-related (i.e., back and upper extremity) impairments comprised the largest group of impairments (23.4% of total) involved in litigation. The top two areas of dispute were termination and alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodation, respectively. The distribution of musculoskeletaland nonmusculoskeletal-related cases were similar for these two areas of dispute. These findings highlight the direction upon which effective work re-entry strategies for workers with musculoskeletal-related disabilities must focus. Efforts to provide effective accommodation for these workers should improve retum-to-work outcomes and reduce the risk of litigation. Specific recommendations for such efforts are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Public Law 101-336; 42 USC 12101 et seq. (1990).

  2. Job Accommodation Network. Report to Congress on the Job Accommodation Network, July 26, 1995.

  3. USC 12112 Sec. 102.

  4. CFR Sec. 1630.2

  5. CFR Sec. 1601.24.

  6. CFR Sec. 1601.24–25.

  7. Noonan RD. The Americans with Disabilities Act and cumulative trauma disorders. In: Erdil M, Dickerson OB, eds. Cumulative trauma disorders: prevention, evaluation, and treatment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1997, pp. 659-691.

    Google Scholar 

  8. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Lost-Worktime Injuries: Characteristics Resulting Time Away from Work, 1995. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997.

  9. Krause N, Dasinger L, Weigand A. Does Modified Work Facilitate Return to Work for Temporarily or Permanently Disabled Workers? Review of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography. Unpublished report prepared for the Industrial Medical Council of the State of California and the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation, Berkeley, CA, August 20, 1997.

  10. Reid J, Ewan C, Lowy E. Pilgrimage of pain: The illness experiences of women with repetition strain injury and the search for credibility. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 601-612.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Niemeyer LO. Social labeling, stereotyping, and observer bias in workers' compensation: The impact of provider-patient interaction on outcome. J Occup Rehab 1991; 1: 251-269.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tarasuk V, Eakin JM. Back problems are for life: Perceived vulnerability and its implications for chronic disability. J Occup Rehab 1994; 4: 55-64.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Haag AB. Ergonomic standards, guidelines, and strategies for prevention of back injury. Occup Med 1992; 7: 155-165.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murrman SK. The Americans with Disabilities Act: Perspectives on reasonable accommodation. J. Int. Acad. Hospitality Res. 1992; 5: 2-14.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Habeck RV, Leahy MJ, Hunt HA, Chan F, Welch EM. Employer factors related to workers' compensation claims and disability management. Rehab. Counsel. Bull. 1991; 34: 210-226.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blanck PD. Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act: 1996 follow-up report on Sears, Roebuck and Co. Spine 1996; 21: 1602-1608.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Himmelstein JS, Feuerstein M, Stanek EJ, Koyamatsu K, Pransky GS, Morgan W, Anderson KO. Work-related upper extremity disorders and work disability: Clinical and psychosocial presentation. J Occup Environ Med 1995; 37: 1278-1286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kearney D. Reasonable accommodations. Job descriptions in the age of ADA, OSHA, and Worker's Comp. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994, pp. 60-64.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stockdell SM, Crawford MS. An industrial model for assisting employers to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Am J Occup Ther 1992; 46: 427-433.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Richardson M. The impact of the Americans With Disabilities Act on employment opportunity for people with disabilities. Annu Rev Public Health 1994; 15: 91-105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Maanen J. Breaking in: Socialization to work. In: Dubin R, ed. Handbook of work, organization, and society. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1976, pp. 67-130.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Colella A. Organizational socialization of employees with disabilities: Critical issues and implications for workplace interventions. J Occup Rehab 1994; 4: 87-106.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Johns RE, Bloswick DS, Elegante JM, Colledge AL. Chronic, recurrent low back pain: A methodology for analyzing fitness for duty and managing risk under the Americans with Disabilities Act. J Occup Med 1994; 36: 537-547.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rodgers SH. Job evaluation in worker fitness determination. Occup Med 1988; 3: 219-239.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Armstrong TJ, Buckle P, Fine LJ, Hagberg M, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Kuorinka IAA, Silverstein BA, Sjogaard G, Viikari-Juntura ERA. A conceptual model for work-related neck and upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health 1993; 19: 73-84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Feuerstein M. A multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, evaluation, and management of work disability. J Occup Rehab 1991; 1: 5-12.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Krause N, Ragland DR. Occupational disability due to low back pain: A new interdisciplinary classification based on a phase model of disability. Spine 1994; 19: 1011-1020.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Campanelli L. The aging work force: Implications for organizations. Occup Med 1990; 5: 817-826.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Akabus SH, Gates LB, Galvin DE. Disability management: A complete system to reduce costs, increase productivity, meet employee needs, and ensure legal compliance. New York: American Management Association, 1992, pp. 65-88.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland

    Grant D. Huang & Michael Feuerstein

  2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland

    Michael Feuerstein

Authors
  1. Grant D. Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Feuerstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Feuerstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huang, G.D., Feuerstein, M. Americans with Disabilities Act Litigation and Musculoskeletal-Related Impairments: Implications for Work Re-Entry. J Occup Rehabil 8, 91–102 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023064722078

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023064722078

Search

Navigation