Advertisement

Legal Dimensions of Disability Evaluation: Work Disability and Human Rights

  • Jerome BickenbachEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability book series (SHHDW)

Abstract

Viewed in light of its historic origins in the political need to distinguish the “worthy” from the “unworthy” poor in the seventeenth century and, in later centuries, the reliance on the medical profession to provide the authority for disability determination, the legal dimensions of disability evaluation can be reduced to the simple legal requirement for certainty and administrative convenience. From this perspective, all schemes of disability evaluation in use around the globe can be legally assessed in terms of their reliability, consistency, transparency, and administration cost. There is, in this sense, no legal concern for a scientifically correct model of work disability. For this reason, the legal argument for using the ICF for disability evaluation is quite weak. The lawyer will ask whether the disruption in current practice would be worth the scientific improvement that the ICF would bring about, and the chances are the answer will be no.

Yet, there is a very strong case to be made that outside of the restricted borders of disability evaluation, and in light the law of equality and human rights, the ICF conceptualization of disability has profound legal resonance. In this broader context, with its entirely different historical antecedents, there is indeed a “correct” conception of disability: it is that which captures the universal lived experience of people, their needs, and the contexts in which they live and act. From a human rights perspective – which is a more fundamental legal perspective – it is very much a legal concern that people with disabilities are limited in their participation in employment, not because of their health condition, their impairments, or their functional limitations, but because of the barriers created by features of their physical, human-built, attitudinal, social, and political environment.

Keywords

Work Disability Vocational Rehabilitation Disability Evaluation Supplemental Security Income Functional Capacity Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Rushton P. Lunatics and idiots: mental disability, the community, and the poor law in north-east England, 1600–1800. Med Hist. 1988;32:34–50.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stiker H. A history of disability. W. Sayers, Trans. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stone DA. Physicians as gatekeepers: illness certification as a rationing device. Public Policy. 1979;27(2):227–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stone DA. The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drimmer JC. Cripples, overcomers, and civil rights: tracing the evolution of federal legislation and social policy for people with disabilities. UCLA Law Rev. 1993;40(5):1341–410.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rummery K, Glendinning C. Access to services as a civil and social rights issue: the role of welfare professionals in regulating access to and commissioning services for disabled and older people under New Labour. Soc Policy Adm. 2000;34(5):529–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lord W, Jowell J, de Smith A. De Smith’s judicial review. 7th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell; 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scotch RK. From good will to civil rights: transforming federal disability policy. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bickenbach JE. Ethics, law, and policy, SAGE reference series on disability: key issues and future directions, vol. 4. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Brien R. Crippled justice: the history of modern disability policy in the workplace. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Institute of Medicine, Wunderlich GS, Rice DP, Amado NL, editors. The dynamics of disability: measuring and monitoring disability for social security programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Institute of Medicine, Stobo JD, McGeary M, Barnes DK, editors. Improving the social security disability decision process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rondinelli RD, Genovese E, Kat RT, et al., editors. Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. 6th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    UN. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. G.A. Res. 61/106. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/contexte.htm (2007). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs. Definitions of disability in Europe: a comparative analysis. http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2088&langId=en (2002). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  18. 18.
    US. Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). Title 20, code of federal regulations employees’ benefits. http://www.workerscompensation.com/regulations/statedepartment.php?ID=2064&state=federal&Parent=2064 (2012). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    McCarthy ML, McAndrew MP, MacKenzie EJ, et al. Correlation between the measures of impairment, according to the modified system of the American Medical Association, and function. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 1998;80:1034–42.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spieler EA, Barth PS, Burton Jr JF, Himmelstein J, Rudolph L. Recommendations to guide revision of the guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. American Medical Association. JAMA. 2000;283:519–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forst L, Friedman L, Chukwu A. Reliability of the AMA Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(12):1021–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colledge A, Hunter B, Bundall LD, Holmes EB. Impairment rating ambiguity in the United States: the Utah Impairment Guides for calculating workers’ compensation impairments. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24 Suppl 2:S232–41.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pryor ES. Flawed promises: a critical evaluation of the AMA’s Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. Harv Law Rev. 1990;103(4):964–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jette AM, Badley E. Conceptual issues in the measurement of work disability. In: Mathiowetz N, Wunderlich GS, editors. Survey measurement of work disability: summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. p. 4–27.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reneman MF, Dijkstra SJ. Introduction to the special issue on functional capacity evaluation: from expert based to evidence base. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13:203–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Okpaku SO, Sibulkin AE, Schenzler C. Disability determinations for adults with mental disorders: Social Security Administration vs independent judgments. Am J Public Health. 1998;84:1791–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wideman TH, Sullivan MJ. Differential predictors of the long-term levels of pain intensity, work disability, healthcare use, and medication use in a sample of workers’ compensation claimants. Pain. 2011;152:376–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bufka LF, Stewart D, Stark S. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is emerging as the principal framework for the description of health and health related status. Can J Occup Ther. 2008;75(3):134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giannangelo K, Bowman S, Dougherty M, Fenton S. ICF: representing the patient beyond a medical classification of diagnoses. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2005;5(2):1–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Escorpizo R, Stucki G. Disability evaluation, social security, and the international classification of functioning, disability and health: the time is now. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(6):645–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marfeo EE, Haley SM, Jette AM, Eisen SV, Ni P, Bogusz K, Meterko M, McDonough CM, Chan L, Brandt DE, Rasch EK. Conceptual foundation for measures of physical function and behavioral health function for social security work disability evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(9):1645–52.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wright B. Physical disability – a psychosocial approach. New York: Harper & Row; 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Safilios-Rothschild C. The sociology and social psychology of disability and rehabilitation. New York: Random House; 1970.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Soer R, van der Schans CP, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, Reneman MF. Normative values for a functional capacity evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(1):785–94.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Loisel P, Anema JR, editors. Handbook of work disability prevention and management. New York: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harten JA. Functional capacity evaluation. Occup Med. 1998;13(1):209–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Truchon M, Fillion L. Biopsychosocial determinants of chronic disability and low-back pain: a review. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10:117–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. The utility of functional capacity evaluation: the opinion of physicians and other experts in the field of return to work and disability claims. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006;79(6):528–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wind H, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Effect of functional capacity evaluation information on the judgment of physicians about physical work ability in the context of disability claims. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009;82(9):1087–96.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Slebus FG, Sluiter JK, Kuijer PFM, Willems JHBM, Frings-Dresen MHW. Work-ability evaluation: a piece of cake or a hard nut to crack? Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(16):1295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    de Boer W, Donceel P, Brage S, Rus M, Willems JHBM. Medico-legal reasoning in disability assessment: a focus group and validation study. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:335–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schwegler U, Anner JB, Boldt C, et al. Aspects of functioning and environmental factors in medical work capacity evaluations of persons with chronic widespread pain and low back pain can be represented by a combination of applicable ICF Core Sets. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1088–103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Anner J, Schwegler U, Kunz R, Trezzini B, de Boer W. Evaluation of work disability and the international classification of functioning, disability and health: what to expect and what not. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:470–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Saltychev M, Kinnunen A, Laimi K. Vocational rehabilitation evaluation and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(1):106–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    ILO. Managing disability in the workplace: ILO code of practice. Geneva: ILO. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_103324.pdf (2002). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  47. 47.
    UN. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (1948). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  48. 48.
    UN. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entry into force 3 January 1976, in accordance with article 27. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx. Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  49. 49.
    EU. European Social Charter, 529 UNTS 89, entered into force 26 Feb. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=035&CL=ENG (1965). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  50. 50.
    EU. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/32007X1214/htm/C2007303EN.01000101.htm(2000). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  51. 51.
    UN. The Right to Work – General comment No. 18, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. E/C.12/GC/18. http://www.nesri.org/sites/default/files/CESCR_General_Comment_18.pdf (2006). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  52. 52.
    O’Connell R. The right to work in the European Convention on Human Rights. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev. 2012;2:176–90.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    ILO. Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention (No. 159) and Recommendation (No. 168): United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva: ILO. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_103529.pdf (2008). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.
  54. 54.
    OHCHR. Thematic study on work and employment of persons with disabilities. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Disability/Pages/WorkAndEmployment.aspx (2012). Accessed 30 Dec 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Sciences and Health PolicyUniversity of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic ResearchNottwilSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations