There really isn't any clear and obvious border, that's the thing. But there are definitely SOME clear questions you can ask about what a person can and can't do. For instance, whether or not you're able to live on your own without constant assistance is a big one. Another is whether you need special equipment in order to attain that self-sufficiency. One could also ask whether you can do more specific tasks, but it really depends on what those actions are... because no matter who you are, disabled or no, there are plenty of things you CAN'T do that won't limit you in most areas of your life. For instance, a simple case of nearsightedness may prevent you from driving without your glasses, but that particular limitation isn't one most people would consider a disability. If it were severe enough to become legal blindness, though, it WOULD be a disability. It's very subjective, right?jsc_tidus wrote:I dont really know the border of physical disability or a desease, but i do sometimes (mostly) got shivering out of the blue.. I cant straight up my fingers without shaking them (unintentionally).. With these, obviously i cant draw.
Personally, as the son of an eye doctor, I don't think correctable nearsightedness and farsightedness should be presented as disabilities, but only because of how mild they are in today's world thanks to glasses. They are, however, definitely along the same track as some things that could be called disabilities...it's just a matter of severity.
Hmmm. But I have gone in for doctor's appointments with doctors hired by the state specifically for disability evaluations. Wouldn't the state put more stock in what those doctors say, rather than my primary care physician? As far as what I've heard, the PCP doesn't give their opinion of patient worthiness so much as describe what they can and can't do. Is that what you've heard?uwa wrote:My mother used to be in some sort of medical administrative position, and my uncle works for the government on disability claims, and this is what I've heard them say (I don't understand the system myself): It largely comes down to your doctor. If your doctor thinks you should get disability, you probably will, if not, you won't. Some doctors think a little pain should count as a disability, some think major problems shouldn't, and many can't be arsed to file the proper paperwork.
So, in other words, the system is ridiculously inconsistent and unfair, and if you're going to try to file for disability, it might be a good idea to shop for an agreeable doctor. But, again, that's just based on what I've heard without any understanding of the system.
I do trust my physician pretty well, and it's not just me being naive: I left a previous physician FOR my current physician, because my previous doctor was the one who misdiagnosed my stroke and put me in much greater danger. That change happened before my evaluations, though.
But anyway, thanks for your advice about the system. I'll keep it in mind when I'm asking questions. I mostly feel I should ask my attorney and listen to his advice, though.
Ahh, I never knew crutches would be an option for that affliction (if only on occasion). So that means you have the ability to stand upright, at least partially?Luisiroth wrote:I have paraplegia and I'm in a wheelchair most of the time. I can walk with crutches, but is very tiring for me, so I do it just as an exercise.
Also curious: if you use crutches for exercise, isn't regular wheelchair use also pretty good exercise? Or do you normally use a power chair? I used to attend a community college built on a hill, where the ramps were so severe that almost every wheelchair-user there resorted to a power chair. I always expected that if I saw someone using a manual wheelchair on campus, they'd have big beefy arms from all that crazy exercise.
