Guest guest Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 hi everybody....i don't post often but have a wierd situation....have had p since teen years and am in my forties with PA for years now..... but the question is in regards to my big toe.....i suddenly seem to have a lot of pain on the inside of the big toe and under the base of it on the outside.....this is new and came on suddenly...... i have noticed that my big toes both seem to turn inward now and they didn't do that before.....i have a lot of pain in both ankles and arch areas..... any ideas about the toe thing? Pixy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 In a message dated 10/5/03 2:10:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pixyprism@... writes: << i have noticed that my big toes both seem to turn inward now and they didn't do that before.....i have a lot of pain in both ankles and arch areas..... any ideas about the toe thing? Pixy >> [Ed. Note: The big toes are a very popular target for PA woes. One of the more common of the 5 types of PA concentrates on " distal " (i.e., at a distance from the center, or " peripheral " --here, hands and feet) joints. D.] Hi Pixy, I have big toe problems. I think sore big toes are pretty common amongst PA'ers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 This info might be helpful somehow, as well. I will share it with my organization as we plan the brochure for HP's. Thanks for posting. writes: > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...> > Subject: Re: ^ SURVEY: What do we want health practitioners to know? > > > Actually Ginger, > > This was taken care of over ten years ago with the passage of the Americans > with Disabilities Act [the ADA]. > > The act provides that any employee with a disability is to be accommodated > by his employer. > > The act seems to loosely allow an employee's physician to declare the > employee with a disability and the employer once learning of the disability MUST > accommodate that disability. > > For example: ... ... ... ............. [see original post] > > I'd say any employee suffering with an employment induced allergy is > automatically covered by the ADA.. The first problem is few in middle management > understand the ADA and few lawyers understand the ADA.. I'd say that any > lawyer working in the human resources [employee relations] field could easily > handle a complaint in this field. The problem here is the law is new enough that > most run of the mill lawyers know nothing of the law.. > > In my opinion the law is powerful and protects the employee in many ways... > > Hope this helps.. > > Gibala I wish you health, peace, truth and prosperity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 This info might be helpful somehow, as well. I will share it with my organization as we plan the brochure for HP's. Thanks for posting. writes: > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...> > Subject: Re: ^ SURVEY: What do we want health practitioners to know? > > > Actually Ginger, > > This was taken care of over ten years ago with the passage of the Americans > with Disabilities Act [the ADA]. > > The act provides that any employee with a disability is to be accommodated > by his employer. > > The act seems to loosely allow an employee's physician to declare the > employee with a disability and the employer once learning of the disability MUST > accommodate that disability. > > For example: ... ... ... ............. [see original post] > > I'd say any employee suffering with an employment induced allergy is > automatically covered by the ADA.. The first problem is few in middle management > understand the ADA and few lawyers understand the ADA.. I'd say that any > lawyer working in the human resources [employee relations] field could easily > handle a complaint in this field. The problem here is the law is new enough that > most run of the mill lawyers know nothing of the law.. > > In my opinion the law is powerful and protects the employee in many ways... > > Hope this helps.. > > Gibala I wish you health, peace, truth and prosperity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 I was told today by a lawyer that they can say they can accomodate you as long as it isnt a hardship. The Shipyard is saying it was a hardshhip to them Ginger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 I was told today by a lawyer that they can say they can accomodate you as long as it isnt a hardship. The Shipyard is saying it was a hardshhip to them Ginger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Thank you Angel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Thank you Angel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 So Ken are you an attorney? As you have your FACTS assbackwards regarding this so called MUST accommodaate? IF in fact your theories were fact those with chemically related illnesses would be WORKING not on disability. Care to explain how ALL their employers were able to get away with such a law as you are citing? YOu need to learn what IS and what IS NOT reasonable and what is covered and what is not. Angel On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Stinkypouf@... wrote: > Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:29:19 EDT > From: Stinkypouf@... > Reply- > > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > This info might be helpful somehow, as well. I will share it with my > organization as we plan the brochure for HP's. > Thanks for posting. > > > writes: > > > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...> > > Subject: Re: ^ SURVEY: What do we want health practitioners to know? > > > > > > Actually Ginger, > > > > This was taken care of over ten years ago with the passage of the > Americans > > with Disabilities Act [the ADA]. > > > > The act provides that any employee with a disability is to be > accommodated > > by his employer. > > > > The act seems to loosely allow an employee's physician to declare the > > employee with a disability and the employer once learning of the > disability MUST > > accommodate that disability. > > > > For example: ... ... ... ............. [see original post] > > > > I'd say any employee suffering with an employment induced allergy is > > automatically covered by the ADA.. The first problem is few in middle > management > > understand the ADA and few lawyers understand the ADA.. I'd say that > any > > lawyer working in the human resources [employee relations] field could > easily > > handle a complaint in this field. The problem here is the law is new > enough that > > most run of the mill lawyers know nothing of the law.. > > > > In my opinion the law is powerful and protects the employee in many > ways... > > > > Hope this helps.. > > > > Gibala > > > > > > > I wish you health, peace, truth and prosperity. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 So Ken are you an attorney? As you have your FACTS assbackwards regarding this so called MUST accommodaate? IF in fact your theories were fact those with chemically related illnesses would be WORKING not on disability. Care to explain how ALL their employers were able to get away with such a law as you are citing? YOu need to learn what IS and what IS NOT reasonable and what is covered and what is not. Angel On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Stinkypouf@... wrote: > Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:29:19 EDT > From: Stinkypouf@... > Reply- > > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > This info might be helpful somehow, as well. I will share it with my > organization as we plan the brochure for HP's. > Thanks for posting. > > > writes: > > > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...> > > Subject: Re: ^ SURVEY: What do we want health practitioners to know? > > > > > > Actually Ginger, > > > > This was taken care of over ten years ago with the passage of the > Americans > > with Disabilities Act [the ADA]. > > > > The act provides that any employee with a disability is to be > accommodated > > by his employer. > > > > The act seems to loosely allow an employee's physician to declare the > > employee with a disability and the employer once learning of the > disability MUST > > accommodate that disability. > > > > For example: ... ... ... ............. [see original post] > > > > I'd say any employee suffering with an employment induced allergy is > > automatically covered by the ADA.. The first problem is few in middle > management > > understand the ADA and few lawyers understand the ADA.. I'd say that > any > > lawyer working in the human resources [employee relations] field could > easily > > handle a complaint in this field. The problem here is the law is new > enough that > > most run of the mill lawyers know nothing of the law.. > > > > In my opinion the law is powerful and protects the employee in many > ways... > > > > Hope this helps.. > > > > Gibala > > > > > > > I wish you health, peace, truth and prosperity. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Angel, I cited you three cases I was close to seven years ago... I gave you the facts as of then.. Sorry for your difficulties.. ken ================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: Angel MCS<mailto:jap2bemc@...> <mailto: > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 So Ken are you an attorney? As you have your FACTS assbackwards regarding this so called MUST accommodaate? IF in fact your theories were fact those with chemically related illnesses would be WORKING not on disability. Care to explain how ALL their employers were able to get away with such a law as you are citing? YOu need to learn what IS and what IS NOT reasonable and what is covered and what is not. Angel On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Stinkypouf@... wrote: > Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:29:19 EDT > From: Stinkypouf@... > Reply- > > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > This info might be helpful somehow, as well. I will share it with my > organization as we plan the brochure for HP's. > Thanks for posting. > > > writes: > > > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...> > > Subject: Re: ^ SURVEY: What do we want health practitioners to know? > > > > > > Actually Ginger, > > > > This was taken care of over ten years ago with the passage of the > Americans > > with Disabilities Act [the ADA]. > > > > The act provides that any employee with a disability is to be > accommodated > > by his employer. > > > > The act seems to loosely allow an employee's physician to declare the > > employee with a disability and the employer once learning of the > disability MUST > > accommodate that disability. > > > > For example: ... ... ... ............. [see original post] > > > > I'd say any employee suffering with an employment induced allergy is > > automatically covered by the ADA.. The first problem is few in middle > management > > understand the ADA and few lawyers understand the ADA.. I'd say that > any > > lawyer working in the human resources [employee relations] field could > easily > > handle a complaint in this field. The problem here is the law is new > enough that > > most run of the mill lawyers know nothing of the law.. > > > > In my opinion the law is powerful and protects the employee in many > ways... > > > > Hope this helps.. > > > > Gibala > > > > > > > I wish you health, peace, truth and prosperity. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Angel, I cited you three cases I was close to seven years ago... I gave you the facts as of then.. Sorry for your difficulties.. ken ================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: Angel MCS<mailto:jap2bemc@...> <mailto: > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 So Ken are you an attorney? As you have your FACTS assbackwards regarding this so called MUST accommodaate? IF in fact your theories were fact those with chemically related illnesses would be WORKING not on disability. Care to explain how ALL their employers were able to get away with such a law as you are citing? YOu need to learn what IS and what IS NOT reasonable and what is covered and what is not. Angel On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Stinkypouf@... wrote: > Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:29:19 EDT > From: Stinkypouf@... > Reply- > > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > This info might be helpful somehow, as well. I will share it with my > organization as we plan the brochure for HP's. > Thanks for posting. > > > writes: > > > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...> > > Subject: Re: ^ SURVEY: What do we want health practitioners to know? > > > > > > Actually Ginger, > > > > This was taken care of over ten years ago with the passage of the > Americans > > with Disabilities Act [the ADA]. > > > > The act provides that any employee with a disability is to be > accommodated > > by his employer. > > > > The act seems to loosely allow an employee's physician to declare the > > employee with a disability and the employer once learning of the > disability MUST > > accommodate that disability. > > > > For example: ... ... ... ............. [see original post] > > > > I'd say any employee suffering with an employment induced allergy is > > automatically covered by the ADA.. The first problem is few in middle > management > > understand the ADA and few lawyers understand the ADA.. I'd say that > any > > lawyer working in the human resources [employee relations] field could > easily > > handle a complaint in this field. The problem here is the law is new > enough that > > most run of the mill lawyers know nothing of the law.. > > > > In my opinion the law is powerful and protects the employee in many > ways... > > > > Hope this helps.. > > > > Gibala > > > > > > > I wish you health, peace, truth and prosperity. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Ken... from your erroneous posts on 03 and now ADA it's amazing people don't block your posts. As I am going to do so now.... take my own advice and block you. When I want fiction I'll listen to Sidney Sheldon. Angel On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, kengib . wrote: > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:59:03 -0400 > From: kengib . <jkg4902@...> > Reply- > > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > > Angel, > > I cited you three cases I was close to seven years ago... I gave you the > facts as of then.. > > Sorry for your difficulties.. > > ken > > ================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Angel MCS<mailto:jap2bemc@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:50 PM > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > > > > So Ken are you an attorney? As you have your FACTS assbackwards > regarding > this so called MUST accommodaate? > > IF in fact your theories were fact those with chemically related > illnesses > would be WORKING not on disability. Care to explain how ALL their > employers were able to get away with such a law as you are citing? > > YOu need to learn what IS and what IS NOT reasonable and what is > covered > and what is not. > > Angel > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Stinkypouf@... wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:29:19 EDT > > From: Stinkypouf@... > > Reply- > > > > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > > > This info might be helpful somehow, as well. I will share it with my > > organization as we plan the brochure for HP's. > > Thanks for posting. > > > > > > writes: > > > > > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...> > > > Subject: Re: ^ SURVEY: What do we want health practitioners to > know? > > > > > > > > > Actually Ginger, > > > > > > This was taken care of over ten years ago with the passage of the > > Americans > > > with Disabilities Act [the ADA]. > > > > > > The act provides that any employee with a disability is to be > > accommodated > > > by his employer. > > > > > > The act seems to loosely allow an employee's physician to declare > the > > > employee with a disability and the employer once learning of the > > disability MUST > > > accommodate that disability. > > > > > > For example: ... ... ... ............. [see original post] > > > > > > I'd say any employee suffering with an employment induced allergy > is > > > automatically covered by the ADA.. The first problem is few in > middle > > management > > > understand the ADA and few lawyers understand the ADA.. I'd say > that > > any > > > lawyer working in the human resources [employee relations] field > could > > easily > > > handle a complaint in this field. The problem here is the law is > new > > enough that > > > most run of the mill lawyers know nothing of the law.. > > > > > > In my opinion the law is powerful and protects the employee in many > > ways... > > > > > > Hope this helps.. > > > > > > Gibala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish you health, peace, truth and prosperity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Ken... from your erroneous posts on 03 and now ADA it's amazing people don't block your posts. As I am going to do so now.... take my own advice and block you. When I want fiction I'll listen to Sidney Sheldon. Angel On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, kengib . wrote: > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:59:03 -0400 > From: kengib . <jkg4902@...> > Reply- > > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > > Angel, > > I cited you three cases I was close to seven years ago... I gave you the > facts as of then.. > > Sorry for your difficulties.. > > ken > > ================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Angel MCS<mailto:jap2bemc@...> > <mailto: > > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:50 PM > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > > > > So Ken are you an attorney? As you have your FACTS assbackwards > regarding > this so called MUST accommodaate? > > IF in fact your theories were fact those with chemically related > illnesses > would be WORKING not on disability. Care to explain how ALL their > employers were able to get away with such a law as you are citing? > > YOu need to learn what IS and what IS NOT reasonable and what is > covered > and what is not. > > Angel > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 Stinkypouf@... wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:29:19 EDT > > From: Stinkypouf@... > > Reply- > > > > Subject: Re: [] Digest Number 2120 > > > > This info might be helpful somehow, as well. I will share it with my > > organization as we plan the brochure for HP's. > > Thanks for posting. > > > > > > writes: > > > > > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...> > > > Subject: Re: ^ SURVEY: What do we want health practitioners to > know? > > > > > > > > > Actually Ginger, > > > > > > This was taken care of over ten years ago with the passage of the > > Americans > > > with Disabilities Act [the ADA]. > > > > > > The act provides that any employee with a disability is to be > > accommodated > > > by his employer. > > > > > > The act seems to loosely allow an employee's physician to declare > the > > > employee with a disability and the employer once learning of the > > disability MUST > > > accommodate that disability. > > > > > > For example: ... ... ... ............. [see original post] > > > > > > I'd say any employee suffering with an employment induced allergy > is > > > automatically covered by the ADA.. The first problem is few in > middle > > management > > > understand the ADA and few lawyers understand the ADA.. I'd say > that > > any > > > lawyer working in the human resources [employee relations] field > could > > easily > > > handle a complaint in this field. The problem here is the law is > new > > enough that > > > most run of the mill lawyers know nothing of the law.. > > > > > > In my opinion the law is powerful and protects the employee in many > > ways... > > > > > > Hope this helps.. > > > > > > Gibala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wish you health, peace, truth and prosperity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.