In the case of Woodbridge v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19-AP-321, 2020-Ohio-891, an Ohio appellate court held that mere difficulty in walking is not a substantial limitation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
In this case, a prisoner sued a prison for discriminating against him under Title II of the ADA. The prisoner made multiple arguments that his many medical conditions substantially limited several major life activities in the prison such as using a bunk bed or walking. The lower court found it was indisputable that the prisoner had difficulty walking but did not find that difficulty walking raised to the level of substantially limiting any life activity of the prisoner in the prison.
The Ohio appellate court held that moderate difficulty walking does not typically rise to the level of substantial limitation nor does the use of a cane conclusively demonstrate substantial limitation and that the prisoners arguments such as using a bunk bed were not actionable under Title II of the ADA because using a bunk bed does not constitute a major life activity.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.