Includes bibliographical references (p. -161) and index.
Diagnosis vs. disability
A cautionary tale
The final order.
With a well-publicized trial in the foreground, this volume explores psychiatric diagnoses, the meaning of 'disability', and current law regarding when psychological conditions should allow for special allowances. In 2006 Philadelphia, graduate student Jonathan Love sued the organization that publishes the Law School Admissions Test. Love had attained average scores on the test, but claimed he should have been given extra time because he qualified as a person with a disability - and thus for allowances provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act - due to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The case, which drew in author psychologist Michael Gordon as an expert witness for the defense, reached federal court and resulted in a precedent-setting ruling still as controversial as the disorder that triggered the trial. In this work, Gordon takes us into the courtroom and behind the scenes with attorneys and experts to look not only at this trial, but more than a dozen others that have involved ADHD or other psychiatric diagnoses, and the questions they raise. These include, the real meaning of 'disability', how malingering can be an issue with psychological disorders, and what the more far-reaching effects for the public might be if accommodations are provided to people who do not have a legally defined disability. (source: Nielsen Book Data)