hollywoodnc

1. 3.5 years REPLY: OK...you've been there a little while. I can see 3 yrs contributing to your back. 2. Yes and they knew I was a disabled vet, told them that during the interview, but I also said I don't let it slow me down. Now it is. REPLY: VERY GOOD! You are known to be somewhat disabled by your employer. 3. 1996, I just have a very high pain tolerance and ignore most of the pain. REPLY: OK. 4. I think my job helped to agrivate my back, but I don't think it "caused" it. REPLY: Then after 3.5 years, you have developed an Occupational injury. This qualifies you for treatment under W/C, since you were fine when you first started your job! Your condition WORSENED, due to your job (walking, standing, bending, twisting, lifting). 5. The DVA and my Chiropractor, but my chiropractor is getting paid by the VA. I don't know for how much longer. REPLY: OK. It appears that you only receive temporary relief from this sort of treatment. I don't want to seem rude with this next question, but it will help with my next advice, but How old are you?

Funny, but when I worked at the DVA, they had such a software that could locate Veteran files using COVERS and BINQ/SINQ. Why are they asking Veterans for the records that they are supposed to maintain? And they terminate my employment for filing under a protected group?! Those dumb bastards!!! hahaha...

Hey Graham! I filed my claim as far back as 2002. I am now in my 7th year and it's PENDING Review by an AJ at the BVA! Depending on your conditions, C&P exam write up, what RO is developing your case, if someone actually does their job, and how many claims are before yours, etc., it could take no more then a year(RO) to seven years(BVA)! So, I suggest lying back, and reading a few good books!

Hey rentalguy... Even though there are employers that are more than willing to accommodate, there are those jackasses, that will retaliate. That was the situation in MY case, and with an agency that's supposed to care for disabled people (Dept. of VA)!? They wasted more time, effort and taxpayer money LYING, than if they would have settled at the ADR! These are STUPID people! I even pursued regional counsel for lying to the EEOC AJ! She no longer works there. (Hmmmm... TERMINATED?) I would imagine that Principi had something to do with it, because she violated her Code of Professional Conduct under the ABA! Anyway, my case was a nightmare, because I didn't pre-plan, nor was I organized, and I had to present this to the most conservative court in the US...the 4th Circuit! I don't want anyone to go through, what I went through. I'm in the process of writing a book about this crap to! Anyway, I'm glad in your case that your employer accommodated you for your condition. I hope that if rdnkjeeper has all his ducks in a row, that the city isn't stupid enough to pull a stunt. I don't think they would be, especially if he mentions MEDIA. That won't bode well with Veterans and/or disabled voters in his area! heh, heh, heh...there's more than one way to skin a cat!

Please answer these Questions... #1) How long have you worked on this job? #2) When you first applied for this job, did your back bother you? #3) When did your back start to bother you? #4) Do you believe that your job had an effect on your back? #5) Other than the DVA, did you see a doctor about your back?

Never mind the shop steward...contact your National Headquarters and ask their attorneys!

John... When I worked at the VARO, I filed for W/C, and was able to collect my 30% and COP (collection of pay). I didn't have to relinquish either. Then again, this was for my right knee, it was temporary (not long term), and I was on the payroll at the time.

rdnkjeeper... I can totally understand your concern about not telling your employer about your condition, especially when the economy appears to be working against you. But, you have to come to grips with yourself, on a couple of issues here... #1) What will be the outcome if you don't disclose anything... #2) What will be the outcome if you do disclose your condition... #3) What will be the outcome of your back condition, if you continue with your job... You truly have to face your dilemma one way or another. I posted what I did, because I've been through this sh*t! Would I have done things differently...YES!!! What I presented to you is a preemptive approach, if you decided to disclose your condition. It is up to you to decide what you are willing to do to survive and to not worsen your condition. Good Luck to you.

This thread is acting goofy...it's entering my posts twice!!!

Hello again! I hope that I don't appear hogging this thread, but I don't want to appear as I'm ignoring anyone... In addressing this post... I am in total agreement with your statement here: I have read plenty of EEOC cases that seem to be very contrary to what the ADA laws state. You can Google them and read all night long. The ADA laws are typically set up to protect the employer just as much as the employee. The U.S. Supreme Court has changed the language of Disability, by including Substantially limits any one or more major life activities. One of those one or more is working. Additionally, I have spent many sleepless nights reading Supreme Court rulings and US Code!!! TRUE, that case law protects employers more than employees, especially relating to disability, there is Williams v Toyota Motor Manufacturing. In support to why I believe that rdnkjeeper should disclose that his condition is affecting his work... http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/workcomp.html EEOC NOTICE Number 915.002 May an employer discharge an employee who is temporarily unable to work because of a disability-related occupational injury? No. An employer may not discharge an employee who is temporarily unable to work because of a disability-related occupational injury where it would not impose an undue hardship to provide leave as a reasonable accommodation. Here is one of many cases supporting disability based termination: Employer Liable for Dismissal of Employee Regarded as Having Disability Description Appeals court held that a jury could find that an employer dismissed an employee with hepatitis because the employer regarded the employee as disabled and the jury can determine if punitive damages for malicious action by the employer are justified. Topic Employment Discrimination Key Words Disability; Regarded As Having Disability, Hepatitis; Punitive Damages C A S E S U M M A R Y Facts In 2000, Edwards was diagnosed with hepatitis C, a virus transmitted by blood-to-blood contact. The disease is chronic and requires lifetime monitoring. In 2001, she applied for a job in the kitchen at a nursing home. On the application she checked that she was not under a doctor's care, despite the on-going supervision of hepatitis. Later, when she cut herself at work, her sister, who also worked at the nursing home, told the supervisor that Edwards had hepatitis. She was fired. Her doctor said it would be safe for her to work there, but the nursing home would not reinstate her because she lied on her application. She sued for disability discrimination. The EEOC brought suit on her behalf, contending that she was fired because she was regarded as having a disability. A jury awarded her $20,000 compensatory damages and recommended back pay of $30,000, but the trial judge changed that to $1,240. The trial court held that punitive damages would not be appropriate. The EEOC and the nursing home appealed. Decision Reversed in part. For an employee to prevail on a "regarded as" claim of disability, there must be evidence that the employer believed the employee to be significantly restricted as to a class of jobs. It was for the jury to determine if the nursing home regarded Edwards to be disabled with respect to being a cook. If she were discriminated against because she was regarded as having a disability, it is for the jury to determine if the employer acted with malice and, so, punitive damages could be awarded. EEOC v. Heartway Corp., 466 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir., 2006)

Good Morning Rentalguy... Unfortunately this is the case with rdnkjeeper. In the upper tier of the US, Unions have a grasp on employers, and they must comply to their bi laws. In MY past, I was a member of 3 Unions. I have my personal feelings/beliefs about Unions to, but I'll keep them to myself. Regardless, even if a Union wasn't representing rdnkjeeper, he is protected under federal law. Each particular case is viewed with the specific facts presented. No case is the same, but they ALL have similarities...thus, the reason why we have Case Law. Now GRANTED...If a ditch digger position is available, and I require a cane to ambulate, it would appear on the surface, that I'm being discriminated by an employer if I applied for that job, and was denied such. However, in rdnkjeepers' position, I presume that he was able to perform his tasks when he applied. However, today, he is starting to feel the effects of his job, to his S/C condition. Can this be construed as an "Occupational Illness" in the eyes of Workers' Comp.? If he was fit and able to perform his tasks for a certain period of time, and started to feel the effects of his job after a few years, then YES, this could be considered as an Occupational related illness, even though the condition was pre-existing. It is NO different than the able bodied individual that did not have a pre-existing condition. OK...now you had mentioned: In other words, if you are a ditch digger, and you end up with a bad back, then the government will not expect that employer to create a new position for you or spend an unrealistic amount of money to accomodate your disability. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. However, if you are a ditch digger, and you injured your back, whether it is Traumatic or Occupational, YOU ARE entitled to medical attention via Worker's Comp. Once you have been deemed DISABLED by W/C, regardless if it's Temporary or Permanent, it is regarded as TOTALLY, until you have been treated for such. IF you are terminated before, during or immediately after filing for W/C, you may have a Disability along with Retaliatory Claim. If an employee can establish even a "Casual Connection" in regard to filing a claim was the cause of his/her termination, you WILL prevail in court. Again, that's going on the premise that there are no other mitigating circumstances. Furthermore, and in conclusion, there are programs available to employers (I don't recall where), that assist small business owners in supplying 'Reasonable Accommodations' to employees if it poses undue hardship to their business. I believe it is in the form of a Gov't. Grant. Additionally, if accommodations are to be made, then it is a tax write off. You're right, that the Gov't doesn't expect you to spend an unrealistic amount of money to accommodate, such as building a wing for an individual. But the ADA requires a business to practice common sense to accommodate someone who is in a wheelchair to have a ramp for example. In fact, so does the DVA! But in all due reality, rdnkjeeper can be transferred to another dept. in city gov't, and do a job filing papers, or doing some sort of desk job that isn't so taxing on his condition. That's not going to place the city in a(n) undue hardship situation.

Mistake (entered twice)

I think last count was 63. Does that change things? No...the Law is the Law, and it applies to ALL Americans. Because you live in a small community, does not matter. The ONLY thing that matters is the amount you would receive if you sued for Disability Discrimination. I would presume that there are less then 500 employees working in City Gov't. Title VII Damage Caps: Calculating Your Maximum Exposure Title VII (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, etc.) limits damage awards based on the number of employees the employer had during the "current or preceding calendar year." The maximum total amount of compensatory and punitive damages that may be awarded to the plaintiff are dependent upon the number of employees as shown below. Number of Employees Damage Cap 015-100 employees $ 050,000 101-200 employees $ 100,000 201-500 employees $ 200,000 500 plus employees $ 300,000 But I'm getting ahead of myself here...Let's hope it doesn't come to this! No, it doesn't matter how small the community is. In fact, you have another bargaining chip in your favor... If the City of Marquette TRULY CARES for disabled persons (esp: VETERANS), then the odds are in YOUR favor! Mention TV stations, newspapers, etc., and they'll be eating out of your hand! I'm sure that city Gov't. would bend over backwards, to accommodate you, so that they don't receive a "Black Eye" for firing a "Disabled Person"! Think about it. The city should make "reasonable accommodations" so that you can remain employed. I don't mean to burden you with all of this, but I'm sick and tired of hearing how "We all care for our disabled Veterans", and yet, these same babbling idiots discriminate!? The bottom line... You have TWO choices: Disclose or Not disclose... #1) Pros and Cons to disclose: You informed them that you possess a disability, and for health reasons, you need accommodations. By LAW they have to comply. By LAW they cannot Discriminate, Retaliate nor can they Harass. #2) Pros and Cons NOT to disclose: You deteriorate further. You start receiving notices that you are performing inefficiently. You do not pick up the pace...you are terminated for poor performance! Assuming #2 occurs, you have no grounds in court, being that your employer was UNAWARE that you had a DISABLING condition!!! The case will be tossed out, because YOU FAILED at informing your employer that your job was effecting your condition, and vise-versa. My overall advise to you is to call the Unions National Headquarters, and ask THEM what you should do. They should have a team of lawyers that could answer your questions. Also review your Union bi-laws handbook. It should state something in it regarding disability, accommodations, etc.. I advise you LEARN IT. Personally speaking, NO JOB is worth the deterioration of anyones' HEALTH! My advice, is to disclose, apply for SSDI, and remain on the job for as long as you can stand it. I hope this helps!

rentalguy... I have to disagree with you on this Brother. I truly admire 99% of your posts, but unfortunately, you are incorrect here! Terminating an individual based on Just Cause, is irrelevant here, because there is a Collective Bargaining contract to adhere to. This Union contract supersedes the just cause argument in court. According to LAW, IF rdnkjeeper asks for an accommodation, due to his back condition, his employer MUST create a position, as long as it doesn't cause undue hardship on the company. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/accommodation.html & http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/hr_tips/art...;view=true#hid3 In his position, it sounds like he's employed with a City/County job in his state (wastewater treatment plant). He can correct me if I am wrong. Going on the assumption that it IS a city/county job, that would mean that there is at least over a thousand employees. It is clear that there are a multitude of jobs that he can do, other than working at the wastewater plant. Regardless, and as I had stated before, to hide the fact that he is under duress due to his back condition, it is imperative that he mention it to his employer. I say this, because if he didn't state anything, he would be terminated for not performing pursuant to his companys' standards. If he approaches his employer, and requests an accommodation, and provides documentation, he has "trumped" the employer from terminating him unjustly. As usual, Berta is correct when she had stated: These laws have changed a lot-but I think today an employer must be completely aware of a disability- in order to even attempt to discriminate. It is a wise idea, that in order to retain his job, rdnkjeeper MUST disclose this to his employer. This will guarantee rdnkjeeper keeping his job. He will now be known as having a record of, and regarded as being disabled, regardless of the percentage. Any Adverse Action AFTER his disclosure, will show a Retaliatory Action, with a Direct Connection. Retaliation pays significantly higher than a disability claim. It shows Malice. It doesn't matter if his disability was based on an injury which occurred in the past, and was aggravated by his job, OR if it was Traumatic or Occupational, then he is entitled to medical attention with his Worker's Comp. Last, but not least, his Union Steward is now considered as a witness if he is terminated by the employer. This will make his case credible in a courtroom.

================================================================================ = Oh for christ sake rdnkjeeper... I also talked with my union and they told me to keep the herniated disc to myself, if my employeer found out about it I would be fired. I HATE hearing this!!! I read this and I GRIT my teeth! It's not about you rdnkjeeper...it's the BLATANT mentality that employers use to terminate someones employment. NO...DO NOT KEEP IT QUIET! Part of any adverse action taken against you, will be based on their knowledge that you have a disabling condition, and that they took action against you, based on this very fact! (see EEOC Terms: "Individuals with Disabilities") It is absolutely imperative that your employer, and Union are made aware that you are a disabled Veteran, and that you have a record of, and are regarded as such! Ask for an accommodation verbally and WRITTEN, request a WRITTEN statement placing you in a more suitable position, and submit documentation that support your claim, to both your Union. Getting everything in a written format, keeps employers in a legal guideline, because it can be used against them in a courtroom! IF you see a change in any of your coworkers and/or managements' attitude, against you and you are starting to be shunned by your coworkers, then this will let you know that people are aware of your condition(s). Depending on the level, this can be construed as a Hostile Environment. If you are a member of a Union, then study your Union bylaws governing discriminatory acts against its' members. DO NOT listen to your shop steward regarding laws...call the National Headquarters. Let it be known that you will file an EEO complaint if any retaliatory action is taken against you!!! Your Union should be behind you every step of the way. Find out if they have attorneys that handle cases, if things get hairy for you, after you ask for accommodations. If you notice a change in their mentality or attitude, start documenting each episode that you deem suspicious, DATE IT, and let it be known that you are observing and documenting this. Also let it be known, that an attorney will be contacted if the actions continue, and they had better Cease and Desist from any further actions taken against you. This can be in the form, of Harassment, Retaliation tactics, Constructive Discharge tactics (trying to force you to quit). There is a lot of information listed below. IF you seek more, I have a lot more! If you are a Federal Employee, I have a slew of US Code and case law supporting Age, Disability, Rehab Act, OWCP, etc. E-mail me if you want it. Here are some 'Tidbits' that I had in my computer from working on MY case: There will be times when an employer who wishes to dismiss an employee will offer the individual the opportunity to resign. This may amount to a forced resignation and thus a constructive discharge. In Faruki v. Parsons, 123 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1997), a Title VII national origin discrimination case, the plaintiff resigned after he was told that he could not be retained and that in one week he would be placed on unpaid leave. He was found to have been constructively discharged. Intolerability of working conditions ... is assessed by the objective standard of whether a 'reasonable person' in the employee's position would have felt compelled to resign ... An employee is protected from a calculated effort to pressure him into resignation through the imposition of unreasonably harsh conditions, in excess of those faced by his co-workers. Damages - money claimed by, or ordered to be paid to, a person as compensation for a loss or injury. Compensatory Damages: reimbursement damages awarded that are sufficient to cover and repay the loss suffered. Punitive Damages: damages awarded in addition to actual (compensatory) damages when the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit. These damages are meant to deter future blameworthy conduct. Harassment - words, conduct, or action (usually repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms or causes substantial emotional distress that serves no legitimate purpose. Intent - the state of mind accompanying an act, especially a wrong act. This is not an inducement to do the action but rather the mental resolution or determination to do it. RETALIATION UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT What conduct is prohibited? The majority of cases decided under the anti-retaliatory provisions involve retaliatory discharge - an employee is terminated for engaging in a protected activity. A claim of constructive discharge can be sustained if the employer makes the working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced to involuntarily resign. YES...they pull this kind of crap on a daily basis! Start learning the following EEOC terms. Cut and Paste this and put in in your computer. TRUST ME...Learn this NOW, so that IF something happens, such as an Adverse Action, you aren't learning it while formulating your claim/case! EEO TERMINOLOGY EEO, like any other field, has its own terminology. The definitions given below will help you understand any technical language you may come across either in official court decisions or in other literature on EEO. Accessibility A barrier-free environment in which the mobility of physically handicapped persons is not inhibited by external forces such as architectural design. Adverse Impact (effect) Applying certain personnel policies: e.g., word-of-mouth recruiting, diploma requirements, intelligence tests, etc.., uniformly to all applicants or employees, which has the effect of denying employment or advancement to members of affected class. Aggrieved An employee, a former employee, or an applicant for Army employment who files an informal complaint of discrimination based his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap, and/or reprisal. Affirmative Employment Plan (AEP) A plan whose execution will assure measurable yearly improvement in hiring, training, and promotion of minorities and women in all parts of an organization. The effectiveness of the plan is measured by the results it is intended to achieve. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) A job requirement which permits an employer to legally discriminate on the basis of sex, age, religion or national origin. Such requirements are rare. For example, sex is a BFOQ for working in a women's locker room or modeling dresses. Sex is not a BFOQ for heavy physical work since some women are physically powerful. Race and color are never a BFOQ. Barrier Personnel principle, policy or practice which restricts or tends to limit the representative employment or applicants and employees, especially minorities, women, and individuals with handicaps. Class Action Suit A court action on behalf of an affected class alleging an unlawful pattern of discrimination by an employer. A class action suit can be initiated by an individual, a group, and/or a government agency. Conspicuous Absence Particular EEO group that is nearly or totally non-existent from a particular occupation or grade level in the work force. Disabled Veteran A person whose discharge or release form active duty was for a disability incurred or aggravated in the line of duty and who is entitle to a 30% disability compensation under the law administered by the Veteran's Administration. Discrimination Any act or failure to act, impermissible based in whole or in part on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, physical or mental handicap, and/or reprisal, that adversely affects privileges, benefits, working conditions, and results in disparate treatment, or has a disparate impact on employees or applicants. Disparate Effect See Adverse Impact Diversity Recognizing and valuing differences in our employees and using those differences to make the organization more efficient and effective. Equal Employment Opportunity Administering all terms and conditions of employment without regard to age, color, handicap, national origin, race, religion, or sex. (EEOC) The Federal agency with overall responsibility for federal sector complaints. The EEOC issues policy and regulations on discrimination complaint system, holds hearings and makes finding and recommends actions on discrimination complains that have been appealed. EEOC Guidelines Interpretations of Title VII expressed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that have the force of law, and tend to be supported by the courts. These positions are outlined in various EEOC publications. Disability A physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activity. Individuals with Disabilities A person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, or a person has a record of such impairment, or a person regarded as having such an impairment. Intent vs. Effect In EEO law, corporate or personal intentions have no bearing on discrimination. What does count are the effects of what is done. If discrimination has occurred, the intention not the discrimination is of no value in defending one's position. Job Relatedness According to EEO court decisions, any criterion employed to determine whether a person will be hired, fired, transferred promoted, given a salary increase, and so forth, must be directly related to job performance Labor Force Parity The percentage of women and minorities in the total local labor force regardless of occupational specialty. Major Life Activity Functions, such as caring for oneself, performing manual task, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. Manifest Imbalance Representation of EEO groups in a specific occupational grouping or grade level in the agency's work force that is substantially below it's representation in the work force. Office of Complaint Investigations The Department of Defense (DOD) organization that investigates and makes recommended findings on formal EEO complaints filed against the DOD. Protected Classes Any group or member of that group) specified in, and therefore protected by the anti-discrimination laws or the affirmative employment obligations of Federal contractors. The anti-discrimination laws protect individuals from discrimination because of age, color, race, handicap, national origin, religion, or sex. The groups for whom affirmative employment is required are racial minorities, women, persons with a handicap, disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era. Prima Facie Evidence Legally sufficient evidence to establish a fact or a case unless disapproved. For example, s/he belongs to a covered or "protected" group; s/he is employed by an agency in a specified position; s/he is treated differently by the agency with respect to some incident of employment from persons outside his/her group occupying the same specified position. Racial Minority A protected class, members of which have been defined by the EEOC as: Black - Persons having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Hispanic - Persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central/South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. American Indian/Alaskan Native - Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America Asian/Pacific Islanders -Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent or the Pacific Islands. Reasonable Accommodations 1) Used in connection with Affirmative Employment for individuals with disabilities. If an employee with a disability or applicant has the skills necessary to perform a job, an employer must make reasonable accommodations to the physical environment, equipment, schedules or procedures that would enable the individual to function in the position. 2) Used in connection with discrimination because of religion. If an employee needs to be absent for religious reasons, an employer must make reasonable accommodation to grant the employee that absence even though it may conflict with, or differ from, the employer’s schedules, standards or other business conditions unless such absences causes employer undue hardship. Report of Investigation The investigative file prepared by an OCI investigator after a formal EEO complaint is filed. Principal Agency Witness (PAW) A person identified or implicated by the complainant as responsible for a specific act or policy alleged to be discriminatory. Sexual Harassment Influencing, offering to influence, or threatening the career, pay or job of another person (man or woman) in exchange for sexual favors; or deliberate or repeated offensive comments, gestures, or physical contact or a sexual nature in a work or work-related environment. Undue Hardship In order for an employer to legally refuse to accommodate an applicant's or employee's disability or religious beliefs, the employer must be able to show that such accommodation would place a severe burden on the operation of the business. The following are a small list of definitions on findlaw.com. Coercion: [ko-'er-zhen, -shen] : the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will. pre·text ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prtkst) n. An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse. An effort or strategy intended to conceal something pre·text Audio pronunciation of "pretext" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prtkst) n. 1. An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse. 2. An effort or strategy intended to conceal something. pretext n 1: something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason [syn: stalking-horse] 2: an artful or simulated semblance; "under the guise of friendship he betrayed them" [syn: guise, pretense, pretence] Employer Liable for Dismissal of Employee Regarded as Having Disability Description Appeals court held that a jury could find that an employer dismissed an employee with hepatitis because the employer regarded the employee as disabled and the jury can determine if punitive damages for malicious action by the employer are justified. Topic Employment Discrimination Key Words Disability; Regarded As Having Disability, Hepatitis; Punitive Damages C A S E S U M M A R Y Facts In 2000, Edwards was diagnosed with hepatitis C, a virus transmitted by blood-to-blood contact. The disease is chronic and requires lifetime monitoring. In 2001, she applied for a job in the kitchen at a nursing home. On the application she checked that she was not under a doctor's care, despite the on-going supervision of hepatitis. Later, when she cut herself at work, her sister, who also worked at the nursing home, told the supervisor that Edwards had hepatitis. She was fired. Her doctor said it would be safe for her to work there, but the nursing home would not reinstate her because she lied on her application. She sued for disability discrimination. The EEOC brought suit on her behalf, contending that she was fired because she was regarded as having a disability. A jury awarded her $20,000 compensatory damages and recommended back pay of $30,000, but the trial judge changed that to $1,240. The trial court held that punitive damages would not be appropriate. The EEOC and the nursing home appealed. Decision Reversed in part. For an employee to prevail on a "regarded as" claim of disability, there must be evidence that the employer believed the employee to be significantly restricted as to a class of jobs. It was for the jury to determine if the nursing home regarded Edwards to be disabled with respect to being a cook. If she were discriminated against because she was regarded as having a disability, it is for the jury to determine if the employer acted with malice and, so, punitive damages could be awarded. EEOC v. Heartway Corp., 466 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir., 2006)

Oh my goodness Guys... Fusion is the WORST thing that you can do for any joint. I'm sorry for the negativity, but this is a Medieval approach that doctors use to relieve pain! There are other alternatives, such as Laser Surgery, and the newest is Spinal Decompression. Our bodies were not meant to be fused, and I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy! Daymarine72... What ever you do, DO NOT get you entire lumbar section fused!!! dolfanbls has the best advice with LSI! Go to the link that he has submitted. You may want to submit a MRI report to them for their diagnosis and fees. There is another doctor in New York City, that does this sort of surgery, but I do not know his reputation. He only charges $5000.00+/- per Vertebra. I don't know if he excepts insurance. I recall that his office is on Madison Ave. In roughly two months, I'm hoping to get my surgery done by LSI! It is very expensive though. For me it will cost around $90,000.00!!! That's with Social Security Medicare. They told me that I would have to pay $16,000.00 out of pocket out of that 90,000 fee. Unfortunately, I don't have that sort of cash. Now, being that I worked at the DVA, and I suffered from an On the Job injury, I'm attempting to tie my GAIT to my new conditions in my L/5. I have a Foraminal narrowing and disc bulge. LSI accepts Workman's Comp, so theoretically, if I'm approved by OWCP, I get it done for free. Another technique used, is Spinal Decompression, whereas your spinal column is stretched. This separates the discs, and allows blood supply to heal. You have to attend several sessions to feel the results. Do your due diligence, and research before any operative procedure. Last, but not least, try THIS, and see if it'll work for you until you make up your mind, as to what procedure you decide to pursue... When you go to bed, lay on your stomach, and allow your feet to hang over the foot of your bed... Then, place your arms under your chest, in a crossed position. The reason for this is so you can anchor your upper torso, to what you are going to do next. OK... When you are in this position, and your toes are just hanging off the foot of your bed, raise your toes, using the bed as resistance. Prevent your upper torso from sliding, by anchoring your body with your elbows. You should feel your spine separating. Stay in this position for about :60 seconds. Do ten of those each night. Once you complete your exercise, let the pressure off slowly. After a few days, you will start to sleep like a baby! Additionally, slowly get off the drugs prescribed, and start on a fish oil supplement @ 2000mg's a day. Also start taking Osteo Biflex w/msm. Take a nightly walk with your family as an exercise regime. Do not lift any objects that will cause disc slippage. Do not do any excessive bending, and if you must, try to use your legs. Try that bed exercise, it works for me, and I get through the day much easier then I used to.

My advice, do as these clowns do... "Sweep it under the Carpet"! Wait a few years and file a new claim if you want to establish any additional disabilities. Don't disclose anything that is in your favor, as inaccurate. What you are doing is the honorable thing, but you will find the the DVA is anything BUT! Trust Us...we've been doing this for a while. In due time, you will agree. Just my opinion...

There are only a few doctors under the employ of the DVA that I trust...and they're Professors at the adjoining university! Other than that, I trust VA doctors as far as I can throw them! In my opinion, spend some cash, and see an outside doctor that specializes in your particular ailments. Make sure that this doctor has a good reputation also. It's worth the cost!

THANK YOU skunk! Every time each one of us write/calls a Representative, this remains in his/her mind, and if enough of us writes/calls, it will remain in the forefront, thus they will have to do something sooner or later.

Merry Christmas to you SB and your better half! CONGRATULATIONS, on your obtaining the records! I see that you do not possess the SMRs' yet. Is the DVA attempting to retrieve and send those when they have them in their possession? I'm awfully glad to see you regained your composure, and are focused to fight back. We (I'm sure that I speak for all) hope you prevail in everything that you and hubby seek!!! Best of Luck! :D

Merry Christmas and a PROSPEROUS New Year for all! :D

hahahahahaha... I worked in a hospital pharmacy a while back, and popped a high dose of Niacin, and I turned beet red...EVERYTHING was beet red!!! hahahaha... I was told the same...to drink lots of water. My urine was dark orange, so it cleaned me out real good! You do feel good afterwards to.

Who's Carl Kat?

Uh...Skunk... I'm doing the same thing. I was considered as Under-rated as far back as 1976! The reason why I'm pursuing this now, is because my constant mention of my atrophy, the inability to cross my S/C leg, and a slipped prosthesis. I was only awarded 10%! I was entitled to a lot more than that. I also have an 1151. So, don't give up especially if it is listed in medical reports, and the RO or BVA ignored it. Milk these bastards for all you can!!!

Hello Vetwife... "They x-rayed the wrong ankle & then reported that he only had a sprain - when he actually had a fractured ankle bone. They had him walking on it for over 4 months in excruciating pain before finally doing an MRI & seeing it was still fractured. Misdiagnosed condition, ordering him to walk on the injury 'Thinking' that it was a Sprain,... I don't know if others will agree with me on this, but I sense this to be an FTCA case! Don't delay, see an FTCA attorney FAST! They usually offer a free consultation and some will take the case on a Contingency basis. I hope that you prevail!!!