DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 90-2141 ALDEN WARD, Petitioner V. SAMUEL SKINNER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent ~~ BRIEF OF THE PETITIONER Deborah Piltch Jane K. Alper Disability Law Center, Inc. 11 Beacon Street, Suite 925 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 723-8455 Harold L. Lichten Angoff, Goldman, Manning, Pyle, Wanger & Hiatt, P.C. 44 School Street Boston, MA 02108 (617)723 -5500 On the Brief: Nancy L. Novogrodsky, Law Student TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii STATEMENT OF ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 1 11. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 A. Facts About the Petitioner, Alden Ward 2 B. Facts Relating to Medical Evidence 5 On The Risk of An Individual With A History of Epilepsy Having A Seizure While Driving C. Facts Regarding Ward's Risk of Having A . 10 Trucking Accident as a Result of a Seizure ARGUMENT 11 I. IN DECIDING THIS CASE THIS COURT MUST APPLY THE 11 SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL STANDARD REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT. 11 A. The Cousins Decision Requires the Department 11 to Comply With Section 504 in Deciding Waiver Petitions. B. The Section 504 Standards Governing 14 Certification by Regulatory Agencies is not Different from the Standards Governing Employment Decisions. 11. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S AUTOMATIC 16 DENIAL OF MR. WARD'S PETITION FOR WAIVER SOLELY BECAUSE HE HAS A SEIZURE DISORDER AND CURRENTLY TAKES ANTI-CONVULSANT MEDICATION TRANSGRESSED THE MANDATE OF SECTION 504, WHICH REQUIRES INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S QUALIFICATIONS. 111. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VIOLATED SECTION 19 504 BY FAILING TO DETERMINE THAT MR. WARD'S EMPLOYMENT AS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DRIVER WOULD POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO THE SAFETY OF HIMSELF OR OTHERS. i. A. To Support a Finding that Mr. Ward is not 19 l'Otherwise Qualified" Under Section 504, There Must Be a Determination That His Employment Would Pose a Significant Risk To the Health and Safety of Others. B. The Department of Transportation Failed to 25 Establish that Mr. Ward's Employment as a Driver of Commercial Vehicles Interstate Would Pose any Recognizable Risk, Much Less a Significant Risk, to the Health and Safety of Others. IV. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VIOLATED SECTION 27 504 BY FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO ALLOW WARD TO SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY PERFORM THE JOB OF INTERSTATE TRUCK DRIVER. V. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAILED TO AFFORD 29 WARD AN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING HIS WAIVER REQUEST. CONCLUSION 32 ADDENDA ii. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES cases Paqe Appeal of Stober 15 546 A.2d 155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) Bentiveqna v. United States Dept. of Labor 20 694 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1982) Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal. 20 840 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1988) Cousins v. Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Transp. 4, 11, 16, 31 880 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1989) Doe v. New York Universitv 22, 23 666 F.2d 761 (2nd Cir. 1981) Hall v. U.S. Postal Service 16 857 F.2d 1073 (6th Cir. 1988) Hissins v. Maine Cent. R. Co. 18, 23 471 A.2d 288 (Me. 1984) Jackson v. State of Maine 15 544 A.2d 291 (Me. 1988) Jansen v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc. 23 541 A.2d 682 (N.J. 1988) Kelley v. Bechtel Power CorD. 23 633 F.Supp. 927 (S.D. Fla. 1986) Mantolete v. Bolser 16, 22, 28 767 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1985) New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Carev 14 612 F.2d 644 (2nd Cir. 1979) Prewitt v. U.S. Postal Service 28 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981) School Board of Nassau Countv v. Arline 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 480 U.S. 273 (1987) 28 Smith v. Administrator of Veterans Affairs 29 32 FEP Cases 986 (C.D. Cal. 1983) Strathie v. Department of Transoortation 15, 23, 29 716 F.2d 227 (3rd Cir. 1983) iii. Pase United States v. Yellow Cab Co. 31 332 U.S. 218 (1947) Federal Statutes and Resulations 5 U.S.C. 5706 (Administrative Procedure Act) 2, 11 29 U.S.C. 5791 (Section 501) 22 29 U.S.C. $794 (Section 504) 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32 42 U.S.C. 52000e sea. (Title VII) 24 P.L. 101-336 (Americans With Disabilities Act) 24 20 C.F.R. Part 416, Subpart N 31 45 C.F.R. §391.41(b) (8) 2, 3, 15 45 C.F.R. §84.3(k) 16 State Statutes M.G.L. c. 32 §6(3) 30 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29, §547 30 R.I. Gen. L. 531-10-44 30 Miscellaneous Authorities Annual Survey of Labor Law 28 Boston College Law Review 40 (Dec. 1986) 17 Accommodating the Handicapped: Rehabilitating Section 504 After Southeastern, 80 Columbia L.Rev. 171 (1980) 29 Comment, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: Analyzing Employment Discrimination Claims, 32 University of Penn. L.Rev. 867 (1984) 18-19 iv. ._._.~..-.._I ..... .~... STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Did the Department of Transportation violate the substantive requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 5794, by denying Petitioner's request for a waiv r from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation which prohibits individuals with epilepsy from driving commercial vehicles in interstate commerce without making an individualized assessment of Petitioner's circumstances and the associated risks? 2. Did the Department of Transportation violate Section 504 by failing to determine whether Petitioner posed a substantial risk to himself or others in light of the medical evidence? 3. Did the Department of Transportation violate Section 504 by failing to consider whether a reasonable accommodation could be made which would allow Petitioner to safely and efficiently perform the job of interstate truck driver? 4. Did the Department of Transportation violate Section 504 by failing to have an appropriate administrative process for adequately considering Petitioner's request for a waiver? STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS In this case, the Petitioner, Alden Ward, challenges the decision of the Federal Highway Administration of the United States Department of Transportation (the Department) to deny him a waiver from its regulation, 49 C.F.R. §391.41(b)(8), which prohibits an individual with epilepsy from driving a commercial vehicle in interstate commerce. Ward applied for a waiver on April 23, 1990 on the ground that his condition was well-controlled, that he had been seizure- free for more than six years, and that his treating neurologist had cleared him to safely operate a tractor-trailer rig (App. 105-107) Ward's application was denied by the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration on October 9, 1990 (App. 1-5). Ward filed his Complaint and Petition for Review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 5706, on November 28, 1990. 11. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Facts About the Petitioner, Alden Ward Alden Ward is a 30-year-old man who lives in Billerica, Massachusetts with his wife and young son (App. 12). He graduated from the Andover Tractor Trailer School in June, 1987 (App. 137), and received his Class 1 Operator's License in July, 1987 (App. 154). He was employed as a truck driver periodically from July, 1987 until December, 1989 for a variety of employers (App.7). His license has never been suspended or revoked (App. 9) Ward has a seizure disorder diagnosed in adolescence which causes infrequent, mostly nocturnal seizures (App. 12, 15, 154). He takes medications (Dilantin and Tegretol) which completely control his seizures (App. 12-13, 15). He has been completely 2 seizure free since January 1984 (App. 15, 154).' His neurologist, Dr. N. Paul Rosman, a Professor at Tufts University School of Medicine (App. 156), states that Ward regularly takes his anticonvulsant medications and has developed a schedule to ensure that he does not forget to take them (App. 12-13). Dr. Rosman concludes that given Mr. Ward's freedom from seizures for more than six years, "there is no medical contraindication to his driving commercial vehicles such as a tractor trailer rig" (App. 13). In May, 1989, while employed as a truck driver, Mr. Ward underwent a routine drug test administered in the course of his employment. When traces of anticonvulsant medication were found in his urine, he was suspended from his employment as a driver pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation, 49 C.F.R. §391.41(b)(8), which prohibits an individual with epilepsy from driving a commercial vehicle in interstate commerce (App. 154). On April 23, 1990, Mr. Ward, through his attorneys, applied to Thomas Larson, Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, formally requesting a waiver from §391.41(b)(8) on the ground that Mr. Ward had been seizure free for more than six years and had been medically cleared by his treating neurologist to safely operate a tractor trailer rig (App. 105- ' Ward's last seizure occurred following an evening of excessive drinking (App. 12). Since that time, Mr. Ward has stopped drinking except for an occasional glass of wine. 3 , 107).* In support of his request, Mr. Ward submitted a report from Dr. Allan Krumholz, Professor of Neurology at the University of Maryland and an internationally recognized expert on epilepsy and driving, who stated that the Department's blanket exclusion of people with epilepsy or people taking anticonvulsant medication from driving commercial vehicles was not based on sound medical evidence (App.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shifting and Seizing: a Call to Reform Ohio's Outdated Restrictions on Drivers with Epilepsy
    SHIFTING AND SEIZING: A CALL TO REFORM OHIO’S OUTDATED RESTRICTIONS ON DRIVERS WITH EPILEPSY KATHRYN KRAMER I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 343 II. THE MEDICAL BACKGROUND .............................................. 347 III. DISABILITIES AND STIGMA OF EPILEPSY .............................. 351 IV. THE OHIO LICENSING STATUTES ......................................... 355 V. SEISURE -RELATED ACCIDENT CASE LAW ............................ 357 VI. PROBLEMS WITH THE APPLICATION .................................... 359 A. Basic Intent of the Statues Has Failed......................... 359 B. Unnecessary Imposition of Negligence upon Clearing Physicians............................................ 361 C. Abuse of Police Power................................................. 363 1. Over-Inclusive...................................................... 363 2. Under-Inclusive.................................................... 365 3. Undue Burden....................................................... 366 VII. CHANGES IN APPLICATION ................................................... 368 A. Three-Month Mandated Suspension of Driving Privileges........................................................ 368 B. Physician Immunity for Good-Faith Certifications............................................................... 369 C. Negligence Standard for Drivers with Epilepsy.......... 370 D. Subjective Approach.................................................... 371 VIII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Epilepsy and Employment
    SYSTEM NAVIGATION Epilepsy and Employment Can I be fired because of my epilepsy? • Installing a safety shield around a piece of Both federal and provincial human rights codes machinery. prevent employers from firing someone because they • Installing a piece of carpet to cover a concrete have a diagnosis of epilepsy. However, employers floor in the employee’s work area. sometimes use other reasons to mask a discriminatory termination. • Putting work instructions in writing (rather than just giving them orally) if memory What are my rights if I am fired because of a difficulties/deficits are a side effect of the seizure seizure? disorder or anti-seizure medication. If you think you’ve lost your job because of your • Scheduling consistent work shifts if seizure epilepsy, whether or not your employer admits to it, activity is made worse by inconsistent sleep you have the right to use the Human Rights complaint patterns. process. Contact your community epilepsy agency for • Allowing an employee who experiences fatigue as guidance or the Office of the Ontario Human Rights a side effect of medication the place and Commission. opportunity to take frequent rest breaks. • Allowing an employee to take time off to recover What kind of accommodations should my after a seizure. employer make? Some people with epilepsy don’t require any For help with accommodation, contact your accommodations at work, while others may require community epilepsy agency at 1-866-EPILEPSY (1-866- accommodations to help them avoid triggers, ensure 374-5377). There are extensive resources for they can remain safe if they have a seizure while on employers about accommodations at the job, or help them adapt to seizure or medication www.epilepsyatwork.com.
    [Show full text]
  • The Firs' of A
    . _ BTainin , Paul it.; k Others St%idy, on Dri v ng by S '1 Popu ns. Al Report, Volume 'Conduct .of' the-_ .ect,and State ,=of the Art. Tm_sTippTior. DunlapaniA'ssociates, nc.,Darieff, Conn;. SP.ONS AGENCY Bureau of Educationfor the Handicapped (DH.E.W/:0E)*. Washington,(Lit'. Na jo al Highyay Tra ffic safety Administration (DOT) , Waghington, FEPORT SO DOT-.-HS7802 329 PUB DATE . Apr77, CONTRACT__ DOTT.HS-..701206` 10T? 167p..:. Frpr relatedinfor AVAILABLE F Nat-ion e.1 TechnicalInform- EDPS PPICE MFO 1/PC07' Plus- Pogta-g-a. DESCRIPTORS .Aurally'Handicapped:Cerebral Pal ..1-1 -0i7seas4.5: *Driver rcillcation; Emotionally Disturbed; FP1.1e.PsY; EgUiPment; Evaluaton Method-s;-*Handicapped; mental Tliness;' MPn4:ally t,feurologicallf - Handicappedt Physically Handicapped;.,'Special. Health Problems:- *State L'egislationts 'State iiicensitiq Boards; . - o *Traffic Safety. ., The firs' ofA -volumereporton,m.otol: veh driving by handicapped :parsons focuses, on driving behavior. f -cat 19. types of handicapping conditions. Information is deta&led,,Feg drivereducation an& assesslent materials', present ste* regarding licenSing,-relevantmedical opinion regarding licensing and .axamination, com-plicating factors (such as theuseof therapeutic4 drugs) ,and private-and commercialdriving behavior for specific -. conditions, including the following: mental retardation, mental illness, neurologic and carebrovascular handicaps, epilepsy, - diabetes., musculoskeletal handicaps,. hearingAisoriers,thyro diseasei renal disorders, cancer, and obesity. Automotive. adaptive equipmer# 'is briefly coneidered monq 12 recommeldations. made. are. for a more comprehensive analysis' of the drliving task for, normal Itivars4 'a large scalp epidemiological studyto measure the acoidan,+. .and:7:Lolation sates of sc:),cifio,haUdicapped groups, and validat-d Asse,sSnient and evaluation oroc,edurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Regulatory Driving Behaviour, Perceived Abilities and Comfort Level of Older Drivers with Parkinson’S Disease Compared to Age-Matched Controls
    Self-Regulatory Driving Behaviour, Perceived Abilities and Comfort Level of Older Drivers with Parkinson’s disease compared to Age-Matched Controls by Alexander Michael Crizzle A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Health Studies and Gerontology - Aging, Health and Well-Being Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2011 © Alexander Michael Crizzle 2011 Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Introduction: Multiple studies have shown the symptoms of Parkinson‟s disease (PD) can impair driving performance. Studies have also found elevated crash rates in drivers with PD, however, none have controlled for exposure or amount of driving. Although a few studies have suggested that drivers with PD may self-regulate (e.g., by reducing exposure or avoiding challenging situations), findings were based on self-report data. Studies with healthy older drivers have shown that objective driving data is more accurate than self-estimates. Purposes: The primary objectives of this study were to examine whether drivers with PD restrict their driving (exposure and patterns) relative to an age-matched control group and explore possible reasons for such restrictions: trip purposes, perceptions of driving comfort and abilities, as well as depression, disease severity and symptoms associated with PD. Methods: A convenience sample of 27 drivers with PD (mean 71.6±6.6, range 57 to 82, 78% men) and 20 age-matched control drivers from the same region (70.6±7.9, range 57 to 84, 80% men) were assessed between October 2009 and August 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 1 Ex-Post Evaluation of the Rsap
    FINAL REPORT - VOLUME 1 EX-POST EVALUATION OF THE RSAP SPECIFIC CONTRACT DG TREN A2/143-2007 Lot 2 Impact Assessments and Evaluations in the field of transport The preparation of the European Road Safety Action Program 2011-2020 Authors: Simone Bosetti (TRT) Caterina Corrias (TRT) Rosario Scatamacchia (TRT) Alessio Sitran (TRT) With contributions of Eef Delhaye (TML) January 10th 2010 TRANSPORT & MOBILITY LEUVEN VITAL DECOSTERSTRAAT 67A BUS 0001 3000 LEUVEN BELGIË TEL +32 (16) 31.77.30 FAX +32 (16) 31.77.39 http://www.tmleuven.be Index INDEX .......................................................................................................................................................................1 FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................................................3 TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................................4 BOXES .......................................................................................................................................................................5 PREFACE .....................................................................................................................................................................6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .........................................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers
    Assessing fitness to drive for commercial and private vehicle drivers 2021 edition (draft for consultation purposes released 3 May, 2021) Assessing fitness to drive 2021 (draft) Contents PART A: General information .......................................................................................... 5 1. About this publication ............................................................................................... 6 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 6 Target audience ................................................................................................ 7 Scope................................................................................................................ 7 Content ............................................................................................................. 8 Development and evidence base ...................................................................... 9 2. Principles of assessing fitness to drive .................................................................. 11 The driving task ................................................................................................ 11 Medical conditions and driving ......................................................................... 13 Assessing and supporting functional driver capacity ........................................ 25 3. Roles and responsibilities ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EPILEPSY in the WORKPLACE a TUC Guide CONTENTS
    EPILEPSY IN THE WORKPLACE A TUC guide CONTENTS SECTION 1 The social versus the medical model 04 SECTION 2 What is epilepsy? 06 SECTION 3 Myths and facts 08 SECTION 4 Epilepsy in the workplace 09 SECTION 5 How workplaces can create difficulties for workers with epilepsy 11 SECTION 6 Making workplaces epilepsy-friendly 16 SECTION 7 Nothing about people with epilepsy without people with epilepsy 17 SECTION 8 Epilepsy and Parliament 18 SECTION 9 Using the right language 19 SECTION 10 Crime against people with epilepsy 20 SECTION 11 A guide to the law 22 SECTION 12 Epilepsy and trade unions: what the union can do 23 SECTION 13 Resources and useful websites 24 About the author Kathy Bairstow is a UNISON member and works as the senior advice and information officer at Epilepsy Action. Her work involves providing advice and information to anyone with an interest or concern about epilepsy. This includes members of the public; employment, health and other professionals; and the media. She was a patient representative on the NICE Guideline CG20 – The Epilepsies: the diagnosis and management of the epilepsies in adults and children in primary and secondary care. Kathy had epilepsy as a child, as did two of her three children. She no longer has epilepsy, but does have several long-term health conditions. Introduction by the TUC General Secretary I am delighted that the TUC has worked with Epilepsy Action to produce this new guide for trade unionists on supporting members with epilepsy. The author is a specialist and a trade unionist so this briefing will be an authoritative aid to union reps, officers and members on dealing with the issues facing members with epilepsy in the workplace.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Policy After Seizures and Unexplained Syncope: a Practice Guide for RI Physicians
    CONTRIBUTION Driving Policy after Seizures and Unexplained Syncope: A Practice Guide for RI Physicians MAXWELL E. AFARI, MD; ANDREW S. BLUM, MD, PHD; STEPHEN T. MERNOFF, MD; BRIAN R. OTT, MD 40 43 EN ABSTRACT chose from six possible driving restriction durations: No Physicians in Rhode Island sometimes find it difficult restriction, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, to advise patients about returning to driving after they other (with explanation). The questions asked are presented present with a seizure or syncopal episode due to lack in Table 1. of statutory or professional guidance on the issue. We provide an overview of the medical literature on public policies and recommendations regarding driving after RESULTS seizures or syncope. We also present the laws in Rhode According to RINS/RINA/AAN records there are approxi- Island regarding physician notification of the medical ad- mately 60 practicing neurologists in RI, and most of them visory board of the Department of Motor Vehicles, legal were contacted to complete the survey. Thirty neurologists, obligations, and immunity from prosecution for those representing approximately 50% of practicing neurologists who report. Finally, we present the results of a survey of in Rhode Island, responded to the survey. As demonstrated current practice by Rhode Island neurologists when they in Table 2, in the setting of a first seizure with loss of con- advise patients who have had a recent seizure or unex- sciousness, more than half of the respondents recommended plained syncopal event. Based upon this information, we a 6-month driving restriction irrespective of an identified hope local practitioners are empowered in their decision seizure focus (70.0 %) or normal EEG and MRI (63.3%).
    [Show full text]
  • Epilepsy and Driving Frederick Andermann, G.M
    LE JOURNAL CANADIEN DES SCIENCES NEUROLOGIQUES SPF.riAI.RF.PORT Epilepsy and Driving Frederick Andermann, G.M. Remillard, Benjamin G. Zifkin, Antonio G. Trottier and Patrice Drouin Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 1988; 15:371-377 INTRODUCTION Even with the strictest standards and regular medical follow- (Frederick Andermann) up, traffic accidents may still be caused by illness, but studies of accidents in the general population are usually inadequate to The risk of losing consciousness while driving a motor vehi­ answer basic questions about the medically-impaired driver. cle and the need to drive a car in today's society are opposing They often evaluate the incidence of accidents in drivers with forces at play in determining the fitness and ability of people organic deficits or some reported chronic illness. Ideal epi­ with epilepsy to drive. We must remember that until some 20 demiologic studies of epilepsy and driving would have to be years ago, in Canada and in many other countries people with performed over large regions with uniform licensing laws. Such epilepsy were not allowed to drive. A movement by Canadian studies would require that the state of health of all applicants for neurologists to establish guidelines which would enable people driving permits be determined, and that medical evaluations be with controlled or remitted epilepsy to drive was headed by the performed on all accident victims, including autopsies in fatal late Dr. Francis McNaughton and by Dr. Guy Courtois. At cases. Their driving experience would also require evaluation.1 present, legislation allowing people with controlled epilepsy to 2 drive exists in every province or state of Canada and the United Raffle's study of London bus drivers meets all these criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • PLANNING for CONCENTRATED IMPLEMENTATION of HIGHWAY SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Volume 4: Report Bibliography
    Report HSRI-71-117 PLANNING FOR CONCENTRATED IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Volume 4: Report Bibliography John A. Olson Joseph C. Marsh IV Highway Safety Research Institute Institute of Science and Technology The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 481 05 August 1971 Final Report 1 July 1970 to 31 August 1971 Prepared for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591 Prepared for the Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, under Contract FH-11-7613. The opinion, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I Report No. 1 2. Government Accession No. 1 3. Recipient's Catalog No. I I HSRI-71-117: Vol. 4 I I 4 Title and Subt~tle 5. Report Date PLANNING FOR CONCENTRATED IMPLEMENTATION OF August 1971 HIGHWAY SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES Volume 4: Report Bibliography I 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 1 John A. Olson Joseph C. Marsh IV HSRI-71-117; Vol. 4 i 9. Performing Organlzat~onName and Address 10. Work Unit No. Highway Safety Research Institute Institute of Science and Technology 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 IFH-11-7613 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 1 1 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report National Highway Traffic Safety ~dministration July 1 1970-Aug 31 1971 Department of rans sport at ion I Washington, D.C. 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 1 --- 15 Supplemelltary Notes 16. Abstract This document contains a report bibliography defining a data base on the state of the art in highway safety counter- measure development for each of the sixteen safety standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Epilepsy and Driving
    Editorial Epilepsy and driving Sonia A. Khan, MD, FRCP. pilepsy is a neurological disorder characterized by on driving and epilepsy. One hundred and sixty- Erecurrent seizures, which result in an altered level of six responses were received from 96 of 134 (72%) consciousness.1 Although appropriate management with countries. One hundred and six neurologists (of 231 antiepileptic drugs can result in seizure remission, 30- queried [46%]) responded. In 16 countries, epileptic 40% of epileptic patients are incompletely controlled.1 patients are not permitted to drive. In the remaining A number of studies have shown that epileptic patients countries, these patients must have a seizure-free period are more likely than age-matched controls to experience of 6-36 months.10 This period varies according to the motor vehicle accidents (MVAs).2 As a result, most type of seizure. In 5 countries, physicians must report developed countries impose driving regulations on the names of these patients to their local authorities. epileptic patients.3,4 However, the exact risk of epilepsy In many countries, the rules and regulations are being and MVAs is difficult to assess because of methodological reevaluated and changed.10 Unfortunately, laws that flaws in most studies.5,6 A recent review of the literature govern driving for epileptic patients are variable from found that there was limited class one studies evaluating country to country, and from one state to the other in the risk of crashes in epileptic patients.5,6 Therefore, the United States, requiring individual practitioners to there is a need to identify those epileptic patients with be familiar with the local regulations.11 In 16 countries, a high likelihood of seizure recurrence.
    [Show full text]
  • Should People with Epilepsy Be Able to Drive? What Is an Acceptable Risk
    Should people with epilepsy be able to drive? Every driver has a risk of an accident. 15% of drivers per year make insurance claims for motor vehicle accidents. Crashes bad enough to be reported to the police occur in 1% of drivers per year. Some drivers have a higher relative risk. Table 1. Causes leading to traffic deaths in the USA 1995-1997 Number Percentage Seizures 86 0.2% Diabetes 144 0.3% Cardiac and hypertensive disorders 1800 4.1% Young drivers (<25 years old) 10,579 24% Total deaths 43,884 100% Sheth SG, Krauss G, Krumholz A, Li G. Mortality in epilepsy: driving fatalities vs. other causes of death in patients with epilepsy Neurology 2004;63:1002-1007 Table 2. Variability of common and unavoidable factors in the population Accident rate ratios Maximum rate of accidents because of epilepsy 1.8 Sleep deprivation of 17-19 hours 2.0 Driving within the legal alcohol limit (0.05%) 2.0 Age>75 3.1 Age>70 2.0 Female<25 3.2 Male<25 7.0 Data from the website of the Belgian Traffic Bureau (BIVV) and the "IMMORTAL" project, a study funded by the EU 2004. In, Epilepsy and Driving in Europe - A report of the Second European Working Group on Epilepsy and Driving. The number of fatal accidents related to young drivers is 120 times higher than that of epilepsy-related accidents. The highest accident rate ratio (relative risk) for a driver with epilepsy is lower than that for young drivers, older drivers and driving while deprived of sleep or having drunk alcohol within the legal limit.
    [Show full text]