43 Water Street, Apartment 6

Lyons, New York 14489

July 19, 2008

Ms. Julia B. Day, Regional Director

New York State Division of Human Rights

One Monroe Square

259 Monroe Avenue, Suite 308

Rochester, New York 14607

Re: Amy L. Sliter v. Wayne County Department of Social Services

Case No.: 10126347

Rebuttal

Dear Ms. Day:

I am writing to you in response to your request for a rebuttal to the
material presented by the Wayne County Department of Social Services
(WCDSS or DSS) in regards to my complaint that their transportation
department discriminated against me by refusing to transport me to
medical appointments if my dogs accompanied me.

I must stress that during my working years my profession was journalism.
I don't have much experience doing the work of a lawyer, but I hope this
response makes sense and follows the dictates of reason and law. What I
do know is that the policies of the United States Department of Justice
and of New York State Civil Rights law favors accommodating the
disabled. Those born without handicaps or major obstacles to living may
not need civility from others, but they must know how to be civil to
those who do wrestle with physical burdens. After years of working, I
have had experience on both sides of the issue. Fortunately, as a
reporter I got to write articles on issues regarding the handicapped and
those who need assistance, so I know some of the legal requirements
entailed within the ADA, but I also know how discrimination *feels*, not
only from the perspective of other handicapped individuals, but from my
own experience. I feel that the legal stand on the issue is a correct
one. From a pro-life perspective and in the interests of providing the
right to have freedom to pursue a full life, laws against discriminating
towards the disabled are important ones. Everyone will eventually suffer
from health issues as all people age. Every person should be concerned
about future rights to live, despite infirmities, rights that become
threatened if they fail to be protected by law.

To begin with, I would like to point out that this complaint is
regarding *transportation* *services* provided for Medicaid patients
through the employees of DSS. The complaint is not meant to address
whether or not individual doctors allow my dogs into their offices. If a
doctor refused to accommodate me with my dogs after I was transported to
the office, it would constitute a separate complaint initiated by me.
Whether or not doctors comply with the law is not up to the
transportation department to broach, although they tried to make their
services dependent on this question. This was brought out in the letter
sent by Mr. Leblanc to me after I enquired if DSS could transport my
dogs with me to medical appointments.

By law, medical offices and hospitals are places of public accommodation
and are covered by the laws contained in the ADA. That is to say: the
disabled must have reasonable accommodation to both hospitals and
medical offices. I have contacted the Newark Hospital several times
regarding their policies on "service animals." They have, on each
occasion, reassured me that service animals are no problem. They have
recently finished writing up a formal policy on the issue of service
animals. Those formal policies comply with state and federal laws. Most
of my doctor appointments are in offices located within the Newark
Hospital. The only stipulation to this tolerance in the Newark Hospital,
were the kitchen areas where food is prepared and in the cafeterias
where it is served. My doctor's appointments are not in these areas,
even though it could successfully be challenged that if the public is
admitted to restaurants and the cafeteria charges money and allows the
public into the cafeteria, service dogs must be allowed to accompany
their owners into these areas, also.

Since I arrived in Lyons in December of 2003, Wayne County DSS has been
transporting me to my appointments because I have no other means of
getting to doctors' offices. Prior to this time I had no access to
doctors. I had been living and working with no insurance and no doctors
since leaving college in 1991. I have had dogs since I was born,
however. My dogs have accompanied through life, have gone to college
classes with me, have traveled with me across the country several times
as I have moved to attend school and to find work. My dependence on my
dogs has been proven over the years. This dependence has increased over
time, not decreased. Whenever I have to survive a time without my
animal(s) I end up being hospitalized. When my life's companion is gone,
my reason for being is crushed; the structure in my life is destroyed.
This is one of the reasons I have two dogs. When one passes away, the
other helps me through the grief and emptiness I feel. The expectations
people have that I am strong enough to function without my dogs are
expectations I am unable to live up to. I have never been a person who
could function well socially. This has caused enormous stresses in my
life that are invisible to other people, but that still exist. This
stress is the partial cause of my neurological problems and my nerve
injuries.

Besides mental and emotional stress, I have had enormous physical stress
in my life. I have lived independent of family since the early 1980s.
The only support I have had is my dogs. The hardships I have had to face
have included working from and living in my car for almost three years
in the District of Columbia from 1996-1998, just because I could not
find housing to accept my two dogs and me. Since I realized long ago
that I couldn't live without my dogs, I had to do what was necessary to
keep us together. I achieved my goal and we are still together.

I have had vast experience with myself. In fact, I have had more
experience with my body than any doctor or physician's assistant. I live
closely with my body on a daily basis, but doctors have only gotten to
know me through blood tests, CAT scans, MRIs and other related exams
over the last four years. Relating the facts of my life is a shallow
attempt to describe why my body feels the way it does, but this is all
my doctors can use besides tests to try and know me. My past life is not
of interest to them; however, as it takes up office time to relate. I
feel as if I am an expert about myself. Besides my dogs' expertise, I
have the only opinions and facts that really matter to my survival and
how I must go about it. My dogs are experts because they live by my
side, experiencing life with me - feeling, seeing, hearing and smelling
what goes on around us. They verify what I experience, reinforcing my
need to feel sane, even when everyone doubts me and finds it convenient
to do so. They keep my self-esteem from eroding, as I base that
self-esteem on being right and surviving being right. That is the
foundation of journalism -- pursuing the truth in an unbiased manner. It
had led to an exciting life, but so physically stimulating my nerves
took the brunt of the punishment I received for exposing truths people
would rather not face. My dogs have felt the same stresses. To help
support their health, I found a life companion in 1996 for my male dog
and he provides support for my female. Because of my decision, my dogs
are healthy until the day they pass away. They suffer from no chronic
illnesses, have no arthritis or mobility problems nor have I had to have
them treated for any diseases. Having them healthy benefits all of us.
They encourage me to be healthy to take care of them so they can take
care of me. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. It is my right to
try and live to the best of my ability, even if dogs and not people are
part of that equation.

Every disabled person (and every able person) is an individual.
Individuals are unique, by definition and reality proves this fact out.
There is no proscribed solution to dealing with disabilities. ADA and
civil rights law was created for a reason. The reason is ugly, at times,
because law is only created when there are abuses going on. This is why
crime bills grow over time. Instead of trying to understand the
reasoning behind laws and agreeing with them, people seek to evade the
law and the reasons for its creation by inventing specious reasoning to
combat it, as many criminals and lawyers tend to do. Under the law,
social service agencies are funded by taxpayer money to assist people
who need help. This objective seems to escape the mentality of the Wayne
County DSS transportation department. They are entrusted to uphold the
law and the philosophies of lawmakers. Some people require horses,
monkeys, reptiles or other animals to assist them. I happen to require
two dogs. There are reasons for this and it seems that any argument
would have to outweigh the reasons that point out the benefit to myself
from two dogs. I don't think there are any reasons besides convenience
to the transportation department that try to counter my need for my dogs
for my health. Health and my struggle to be independent outweigh DSS'
convenience issues.

It was not until I became legally disabled that I went to the work to
have my animals classified as "service dogs," however. Over the years it
has become increasingly difficult to find accommodations for larger dogs
and in Lyons it was next to impossible to find housing for two large
dogs. While trying to find housing here, my dogs were boarded at the
Wayne County Humane Society. My dogs had never had to be in a kennel
before. The sudden stress of their environment adversely affected their
health and my own. One of my dogs, Clem, died from stomach torsion at
the Humane Society. He had never been sick in his life. Stress from
being caged caused my female dog, Sheba to lose almost half her body
weight. Only after being boarded did people who saw her think she was
"abused." That is one of the reasons that I got assistance from Lakeview
Supported Housing when I first arrived. It was deemed necessary by my
counselor that I receive extra help, as my counselor became aware of my
emotional and mental needs for my dogs. Only after I found my new dog,
Madison, was I able to go off anti-depressants. The death of Clem, which
I knew would happen at some point, as he was 12 years old, had been
leading to a major case of grief and anxiety. That anxiety is what
brought me back to New York in the first place. It is unfortunate that
only *after* we had been through so much disabling stress to stay
together - was I able to afford legal protection for my dogs to help me
survive.

In addressing the issue of my needing two dogs that Mr. Wyner brought
up, I must say that nowhere in the law does it prohibit the need for two
service dogs. Disabled people are not restricted to just one animal per
person. I think that my history, however, brings out the need that
dictates I have two dogs. As I pointed out, my reliance on my animals
has increased over the years, not decreased. It would take living in my
body to understand the problems I try to overcome with my balance and
mobility. One's sense of equilibrium is off-kilter with neurological
problems such as I have. Having a dog at each side helps me stay on my
feet, as I never know which direction I may fall. When I do fall, both
dogs help me have the support to get back on my feet, since my knees are
too weak to do so without assistance. However, it is not up to the WCDSS
transportation department to judge whether or not I need two dogs, just
as the US Department of Justice has refrained from judging. Every person
is an individual and must find solutions that work to help them function
in their unique circumstances. The right to be an individual is one that
cannot be infringed upon, as it is as innate as the genetics that go
into forming physical, mental and emotional abilities.

It wasn't until 2004 that I was finally diagnosed with neuropathy.
Although my neurologist cannot pinpoint the cause of my nerve damage, I
can say with a great amount of certainty that it has been the stresses,
physical, mental and emotional that have contributed to it. My physical
abilities to get around, get up and down stairs and to stay balanced
have deteriorated in four years to the point that I have to find a
ground-floor apartment and will receive help from Lakeview in moving.
Health is an ever-changing phenomenon and *my* health is no exception.
It has gotten increasingly difficult for me to function in the last four
years and the pain I suffer from has increased significantly since
arriving in Lyons. Although DSS has transported me on "approximately 41
occasions" without my dogs with me has no bearing on why I asked them to
do so in May of 2008. It seems obvious that I would have been refused
transport with my dogs 41 times in the past, because they continue to
transport me without my dogs after I requested it, as of July 23, 2008.
WCDSS has been aware of my being legally disabled. They have had to
transport me to my neurologist in Geneva, despite it being outside Wayne
County, because my neurologist had informed their office that taking a
bus would aggravate my health problem.

In rebutting the introduction of a letter from Rena Reed, MS, I need to
point out that the short sentence she wrote to Mr. Gerhardt is in direct
contradiction to a letter she and Dr. Hong signed on May 22, 2008. It
also is in direct contradiction to a letter she wrote on January 14,
2008 and previous letters she has signed (August 31, 2005) in which she
expressed the opinion that my dogs were necessary, both for my mental
well-being and my physical abilities to function. The letter referred to
by Mr. Wyner, attorney, was a letter submitted to DSS by me to apply for
benefits for my dogs. The letter was not submitted to the transportation
department and was mailed to my worker dealing with benefits for people
who had additional health-related expenses *by me, not by my doctor*.
Mr. Wyner implied in his response that *my doctor sent* the letter to
DSS.

I feel writing this note to Mr. Gerhardt was a violation of professional
ethics, as I signed no release form for her to communicate with DSS's
transportation department. I intend to deal with this issue separately
as HIPAA rights were violated. By ADA law, businesses are not allowed to
ask about my disability, but may inquire if my dogs are service dogs. In
this case, Mr. Gerhardt never asked me anything, but went straight to my
doctor's office to inquire about me. There is no legal requirement for a
doctor to "prescribe" an animal as medication for a patient's ills. If
this were the case - actions, such as Ms. Reed's, could prohibit all
disabled persons from having guide, service or assistance animals,
merely to prevent them from entering doctors' offices or medical
facilities. Laws are meant to prevent abuses, not encourage them. It is
sufficient that I meet the definition of disabled and have individually
trained my dogs to assist me in living.

I have never met Mr. Gerhardt and have no idea who he is. Be that as it
may, Ms. Reed has no legal right to exempt medical offices from those
places deemed "public accommodations" where public places must be made
accessible to the disabled. Medical offices and hospitals are considered
public accommodations in the laws laid out in the Americans With
Disabilities Act. Ms. Reed has no power to say that I have a right to
function in all other public areas, except doctor's offices. She is
inventing an opinion, in direct contradiction to herself, in a way that
expresses her own self-interest. She is misusing her position, abusing
the respect that is given to the opinions of doctors and doing so
without my signed consent to discuss my health issues with anyone else
but myself. Neither doctors nor physicians assistants can place
themselves above the law and throw patients in harm's way, just because
they may want to prevent having service animals in their own offices or
in doctors' offices where they are the employees of the doctor that runs
it, as Rena Reed is.

At this time, I need to point out the fact that my dogs are better for
my mental and emotional stability than my doctor's office. Without being
forced, my dogs never betray my trust. They never mislead me, lie to me
nor act in their own interests at my expense. They charge no fees to
anyone for helping me of their own free will. They do more to bolster my
self-esteem and self-trust than any doctor or nurse. They understand me
with being paid to do so.

Again, this complaint against Wayne County DSS is about their refusal to
*transport* my dogs and myself to medical offices. The issue of their
refusal to transport is separate and distinct from the issues revolving
around how doctors treat my need for my dogs. Rena Reed's opinion may
differ from the opinions of other doctors with whom I have appointments.
I see three other doctors at the Newark Hospital: my gynecologist, my
gastroenterologist and my neurologist. The opinions of these doctors has
little to do with the fact that I am legally disabled, have mobility
problems caused by neuropathy, balance problems and emotional/mental
problems in coping with the public. These physical disabilities are
alleviated by the presence of my dogs. These facts are beyond opinion.
In addition, because their offices are located in a facility that has
expressed the intent to obey state and federal laws when it comes to
service dogs, assistance dogs and therapy dogs, I would have no problem
with my dogs in the Newark Hospital.

If I were to suffer a physical injury from falling because Wayne County
DSS refused to allow me to be accompanied by my dogs, it seems that both
WCDSS and Rena Reed would be liable. I know my own limitations and how
they are progressing.

Because of my physical disabilities, my dogs are legally service dogs
because of the aid and assistance they provide for me. I am their owner
and have trained them myself to respond to my needs. Having someone else
train them to respond to my spontaneous balance/mobility problems is
impossible to accomplish. There is no telling when or how they will help
me stay on my feet, prevent me from losing my balance or be needed to
help me get up off the ground. They must learn by living with me and
*wanting* to help me. Caring about me is not something another person
can train them to do. Love, devotion and the mutual desire to help
cannot be forced to happen between dogs and people. By law, service dogs
need not be certified or trained by people one has to *pay* to be of
service to their disabled owners.

To clarify definitions that were confused by WCDSS, a therapy dog is a
dog used to give therapy to persons other than the owner. These dogs
often accompany their owners to nursing homes, hospitals and other
places to benefit residents. It seems a careful review of the laws
easily available from the New York State Attorney General's office would
be a good thing for DSS and Mr. Wyner, their attorney, to do if they
have any questions regarding service animals. Since they work for the
state, I felt it wasn't necessary for me to teach them the laws
applicable in my case. Nor was it my responsibility to provide
information that is not required for me to provide, by law, in order for
them to avoid discriminating against my dogs and myself.

It is ironic that my dogs fit the definition of service dogs enough to
get benefits from the Department of Social Services in the form of money
for food. But when it comes to being transported, they mysteriously lose
the elements that go into that description. I have submitted the
documentation from DSS that points this fact out.

It also is ironic that I seem to be discriminated against because I
choose to try and overcome my handicaps. The pain I suffer from requires
constant medication. If I were to give into the pain, refuse medication
and shrug off my will to live, I would be hospitalized for being
suicidal and a danger to myself. Yet when I try to make as much effort
as I can to deal with my problems, I find the obstacles in doing so are
located with the same health professionals and social service agencies
that require that I put forth effort to live. I need my dogs. After 49
years of living, they are the only beings that assist me in surviving,
as is becoming more obvious. I should have a right to be accompanied by
them if I am required by law to put forth effort to live as a disabled
person.

Another irony is that painkillers are a big business in Wayne County.
Illegal sale and use of these prescription drugs compete with the
illegal sale and use of other drugs grown in backyards, cooked up in
some meth lab or ground down as rock cocaine. If more people in Wayne
County were allowed the benefit of animals and the positive affect they
have on human health and nerves, there might be less dependence on
chemical relief. But, of course, animals are in inconvenience. It takes
time to walk them, feed them and interact with them. That time, for many
people, is better spent finding drug supplies, redeeming beer bottles,
selling drugs or making money off people who are destroyed from drug
addictions by providing social services.

To briefly review my rebuttal and its points, I think it would be wise
to go over Mr. Wyner's defenses, number by number. His arguments are
weak. Some of his "points" are incorrect because they are not based on
law, just his *idea* of what it is or what it should be if he could get
away with writing laws. I think he failed to review the law before
writing his response to my complaint. His interpretation of the purpose
of the Americans With Disabilities Act is inverted, revealing a
perspective that says that if rights aren't spelled out, they are
*prohibited* from existing. This is untrue, especially in a democracy.
When neither federal nor state laws prohibit an action or policy, that
right remains open to the people. Any read of the Constitution should
reinforce this perspective. In Amendment 10, written in 1791, it states
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people." I am the people when neither the federal nor state
government has prohibited the need and use of *two* dogs. The right to
have two service dogs remains my own. Since the Department of Social
Services works for the state and is paid for through taxes, it must
adhere to what laws the state legislature has put forth and respect the
rights reserved to the people those laws protect. I think this is an
important point that no good attorney would miss. I am surprised at the
general attitude of the Department of Social Services. Their priorities
should include serving their clients and helping people meet their own
needs. This is their job. But their attempt to service their own
convenience and make rules out of their personal "ideas" of what the law
should be to make life easier for WCDSS transportation employees is
unprofessional and unethical. In this case it is illegal.

1\. I am glad respondent admits to transporting me, the petitioner, to
medical appointments. I have nothing to rebut here.

2\. I did inquire whether WCDSS would transport my service dogs with me
to appointments. At this time I pointed out to them that my dogs
qualified for benefits from the state to help me pay for their food and
other expenses. Initially, the secretary answering the call told me that
they would have to do some juggling to make room for the dogs in the
back of the van. I informed her they would remain on the floor, as they
are good in cars, vans, trains and buses. In a couple of days, however,
I received a letter from Mr. Leblanc.

I have been getting more insistent in the community in regards to having
my dogs accepted into public accommodations. Doctor's offices, medical
facilities and hospitals fit the definition of "public accommodations."
They also fit the definition of places of "business" as they make money
from serving a clientele. *My health is changing*. My neuropathy is
affecting my mobility more than it had been in 2004, 2005, 2006, and
2007 -- to the present. Unfortunately, health doesn't behave according
to the convenience of WCDSS. Because my ability to walk, balance myself
and function independently has deteriorated over the past five years, I
am insisting that my dogs accompany me *wherever* I go, as they legally
can do. I have spent the last four years trying to be sensitive to the
needs of other people, as I was in the process of training my younger
dog. However, he is a quick study and due to my health, he and my female
dog, Sheba, have the legal right to be as intelligent, agile and able as
they are and to help me out at all times.

3\. This defense makes no sense to me. Mr. Wyner says that he "denies
being aware of what disabilities that Petitioner has that would require
her to have her two dogs which she characterizes as 'service animals'
present at medical appointments." In the next sentence he refers to a
"letter dated January 14, 2008 from Rena Reed, MSNP, Respondent is aware
that Petitioner has neurological and mental/emotional illness and that
Ms. Reed has prescribed emotional physical support animals to assist
Petitioner in coping with her disability. If Mr. Wyner and WCDSS read
that letter, how can they deny being aware of what disabilities I have
that require two dogs? How much detail do they need to respect the ADA?
Do they need results from all my blood tests, CAT scans and MRIs,
although they lack the education to understand the test results? To have
my physical problems outlined by Ms. Reed, and then claim they are not
aware of my health problems implies that they are experts in judging
whether or not their ignorance of test results qualifies me to have a
service animal. This attitude defies reason. They are not doctors at
WCDSS. In any event, *animals need have no prescription from a doctor to
be defined by their service to the disabled as "assistance, service or
guide dogs."* To imply that I must "prove" to DSS that my dogs are
service animals by handing over the details of my health, allowing them
to infringe on my rights to privacy, is beyond reason. If this were a
requirement, every disabled person needing a service animal would have
to camp out in a courtroom for the rest of his or her lives.
Fortunately, service animals are allowed in courtrooms, if this *dream,
wish or hope* ever became law.

4\. As I pointed out earlier, notes from doctors are not necessary for a
dog or two dogs to be "service animals." WCDSS infringed on my HIPAA
rights to privacy by requesting information from my doctor without my
signed consent and without my knowledge. This goes way beyond just their
rights of inquiry. In the ADA Business BRIEF, it states that "Businesses
may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal
has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the
animal or ask about the person's disability." DSS did ask about my
disability, and they overstepped their rights by going to my doctor and
bypassing the right to ask me.

In addition, the ADA Business BRIEF, states "businesses and
organizations that serve the pubic must allow people with disabilities
to bring their service animals into all areas of the facility where
customers are normally allowed to go. This federal law applies to all
businesses open to the public, including restaurants, hotels, taxis and
shuttles, grocery and department stores, hospitals and medical offices,
theaters, health clubs, parks, and zoos." It is an important point that
the Justice Department specifically mentions hospitals and medical
offices in their publication on ADA law.

If Mr. Wyner had checked into the wording of the ADA, he would have
found that a dog is considered a \"service dog\" if it has been
\"individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a
person with a disability.\" My dogs factually meet the criteria set
forth in the ADA. Facts and the truth should dictate opinions, not the
other way around. So, despite Mr. Wyner's opinion that my dogs (whom he
has never seen and whom DSS have never encountered) fail to meet the
"strict legal definition of 'service dogs' is incorrect. Mr. Wyner
seemingly never checked into the definition of "therapy dogs" either. He
is incorrect when he says that my dogs more "closely fit the category of
therapy dogs in that they provide some emotional security and support to
Petitioner in her place of residence. This response fails to show he
read the letter from Ms. Reed dated January 14. This letter I sent to
DSS, so they were provided with some of the details of my disabilities.
That letter states, "Due to neurological illness and mental/emotional
illness, Amy has certain limitations regarding physical activities,
social interactions and physically coping with stress/anxiety, etc. This
sentence conveys the meaning that I have physical problems and
limitations due to neurological illness. This has nothing to do with the
dreamy idea of emotional need that Mr. Wyner so easily scorns. That
letter from Ms. Reed also states "She meets the definition of disability
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Therapy dogs also might fit the definition of service dog, but the
owners of therapy dogs are usually healthy and have no need for service
animals. They use the dogs they train to visit places where dogs
interact with a large number of physically challenged people. Service
dogs could perform the tasks of therapy dogs if they were versatile
enough to respond to the needs of more than one person and more than one
illness, disability. This is usually not asked of dogs. Therapy dogs are
used to help out a large number of people when their trainers or
handlers take them to nursing homes, group homes, hospitals, hospices
and other places that house the ill or handicapped to provide natural
"therapy" to the residents. Dogs and other animals help people get back
their connections with nature, help reduce blood pressure and provide
comfort to residents who don't otherwise have the benefits of animal
residents. After spending several hours in contact with a large number
of people, the dogs go home with the handler, trainer who might be the
owner, but doesn't have to be.

As should be evident, my dogs are not therapy dogs, although many people
like them and appreciate the fact that they help me out all the time.
However, it also is evident that Mr. Wyner never checked into the real
definition of therapy dogs before writing his response to my complaint.
Below is a very thorough definition of "therapy dog" found at
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Therapy+dog

(See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy_dog).

**Therapy Dog** refers to a dog trained to provide affection and comfort
to people in hospitals, retirement homes, nursing homes, mental
institutions, schools, and stressful situations such as disaster areas.\
\
The concept of a therapy dog is often attributed to Elaine Smith, an
American who worked as a registered nurse for a time in England. Smith
noticed how well patients responded to visits by a certain chaplain and
his canine companion, a Golden Retriever. Upon returning to the United
States in 1976, Smith started a program for training dogs to visit
institutions. Over the years other health care professionals have
noticed the therapeutic effect of animal companionship, such as
relieving stress, lowering blood pressure, and raising spirits, and the
demand for therapy dogs continues to grow. In recent years, therapy dogs
have been enlisted to help children overcome speech and emotional
disorders. The concept has widened to include other species,
specifically therapy cats, therapy rabbits, and therapy birds.\
\
Therapy dogs come in all sizes and breeds. The most important aspect of
a therapy dog is temperament. A good therapy dog must be friendly,
patient, confident, at ease in all situations, and gentle. Therapy dogs
must enjoy human contact and be content to be petted and handled,
sometimes clumsily.\
\
A therapy dog\'s primary job is to allow unfamiliar people to make
physical contact with him and to enjoy that contact. Children in
particular enjoy hugging animals; adults usually enjoy simply petting
the dog. The dog might need to be lifted onto, or climb onto, an
invalid\'s lap or bed and sit or lie comfortably there. Many dogs add to
the visiting experience by performing small tricks for their audiences
or by playing carefully structured games.\
\
It is important to note that therapy dogs are *not* assistance dogs.
Service dogs directly assist humans, and have a legal right to accompany
their owners. Therapy dogs do not provide direct assistance, do not have
legal rights to travel everywhere, and must be invited by institutions.
Most institutions have rigorous requirements for therapy dogs.\
\
Many organizations provide testing and accreditation for therapy dogs.
Most require that a dog pass the equivalent of the American Kennel
Club\'s Canine Good Citizen test, and then add further requirements
specific to the environments in which the dogs will be working. Typical
tests might ensure that a dog can handle sudden loud or strange noises,
can walk on assorted unfamiliar surfaces comfortably, are not frightened
by people with canes, wheelchairs, or unusual styles of walking or
moving, get along well with children and with the elderly, and so on.\
\
Pet Therapy is a more inclusive terminology regarding the benefits from
having a \"therapy dog\", or other \"therapy animals\" such as cats and
rabbits.

This definition is found all over the web and is accepted as the
definition of therapy dogs. WCDSS is incorrect in its points and fails
to use correct and generally accepted definitions of the terms it uses.
This is important because legal definitions *help* me in being covered
by the protection of the ADA. When two parties cannot agree on
definitions that are spelled out, there are serious problems with one
side of the issue. In this case DSS is incorrect and has infringed on my
rights by discriminating against my two dogs and me.

5\. Whether or not DSS reaffirms paragraphs 1-4, my stand on 1-4 stays
the same.

6\. If DSS acknowledges that it is aware of its obligations to
accommodate persons with a disability that have a "service dog' in
places that come under the definition of a 'public accommodations,' as
set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Human Rights
Law, I find its refusal to accommodate me and my two dogs to be a
blatant act of discrimination. I have provided all the necessary
documentation, over and beyond what is required by law, to prove my
status as "disabled" and my two dogs as qualified "service dogs."

7\. If respondent "acknowledges that it is aware that it only has a
limited right of inquiry as to whether a person has a disability and
whether a dog is a "service dog," I question why DSS felt it had the
right to contact my doctor without my knowledge or consent. I informed
them when I first inquired about transporting my dogs and myself that
DSS had a letter from my doctor that stated my need for my two dogs. Of
course, this letter isn't really necessary, according to the law and the
ADA. DSS overstepped its legally "limited right of inquiry" into my
disability. In this instance, DSS again showed blatant disrespect for
the law towards a person they are paid to help. The priorities and goals
of a social worker and Wayne County Department of Social Services are to
assist people in living. Medicaid transport is meant to get sick people
to doctor's appointments, including the disabled and their service
animals. Why they are reluctant to do their jobs is not my problem. But
when they break the law in attempting to avoid doing their jobs, they
make it my problem.

8\. In Number 8, DSS quibbles over the fact that I have two service
dogs. The letter from Rena Reed, dated January 14, 2008 states, "her
need for two dogs has been proven. Her history of hospitalization
consistently has shown that the death of a dog has resulted in
hospitalization due to the sudden lack of support she receives from her
service/support animal. With two dogs, her support is constant and
doesn't suddenly end when the grief over the death of one threatens to
put her in the hospital, yet again."

There is more information here about my health than needs to be given
out to anyone who says they need "proof" that I need two dogs. Besides
the information provided in this letter, my problems with equilibrium
dictate my lifestyle. Madison and Sheba, my dogs, assist my mobility.
They fit the definition of "mobility assistance dogs" that are included
in the definition of "service animals." The following definition is
taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobility_assistance_dog

"A **mobility assistance dog** is a service dog trained to assist a
physically disabled person. Among other tasks, they are commonly trained
to pick up objects, open and close doors, and operate light switches.
Some larger-statured dogs are trained to pull individuals in
wheelchairs, and wear a type of harness specifically designed for
pulling.

Another type of mobility assistance dog task is that of a \"walker
dog.\" They are commonly used for Parkinson\'s patients, along with
post-injury recovering and other disorders and conditions. These
\"living canes\" can greatly assist a person with their gait and balance
while walking. Also, if their handler falls, the dog may be trained to
act as a brace to help regain position.

As with other types of assistance dogs, in many countries disabled
individuals have the right to bring their mobility assistance dog where
in places animals are generally not allowed, such as public
transportation, restaurants, and hotels. In the United States, the
Americans with Disabilities Act is the law guaranteeing this right to
disabled individuals. If access is denied to a disabled individual,
federal and some state laws have heavy penalties that may be brought
against the business denying access."

I have too many reasons for two dogs than can be gone into here, and the
fact remains that I have the right to have two service dogs at my side.
There are no laws that prohibit my unique solution to my individual
obstacles to living a full, independent life as a legally disabled
person. I see no laws in place that prohibit either of my dogs from
having each other for companionship and for mutual support. Being
working dogs, life is easier for them and their own health benefits from
having each other. Keeping them in good health benefits myself and
increases their lifespan. Besides my individual training of my own dogs,
they train each other. When one dog dies, the other is here to help my
new dog adjust to the environments in which we live. Living with my two
dogs all the time reveals facts to me; facts are not distant opinions of
outsiders or social service agencies.

Besides these health issues, most people who have knowledge of physics
understand the need to have equal weights on each side of a fulcrum to
keep it balanced on one point. My spinal chord is the fulcrum or center
of gravity for my body. My arms are connected to my spinal chord through
nerves, blood flow, energy flow, and leashes. Arms are used to create
balance, as are feet and toes. With my feet, toes and spinal chord
needing assistance they don't have without my dogs helping me, it would
seem obvious I need two dogs. I have two arms. Having equal weights on
each arm that respond to my dizziness, my balance problems and my
mobility deficits is scientifically proven (with equations) to help keep
me upright and moving. Why I must teach WCDSS a physics lesson in order
to have my two service dogs with me is not a legal requirement, but I do
try to go above and beyond just what the law asks of me. Whether or not
they understand physics and can do equations while understanding what
the variables are is not my responsibility, nor should it affect how
they perceive laws and the need to obey them. Some people like to refuse
to understand anything, even though ignorance is no excuse in a
courtroom.

"A body is more stable if it requires a greater force to overturn it. A
given weight of material is more stable when it has a shape such that
its center of gravity must be raised farther to overturn it. For a given
weight, that design will be more stable in which (1) the center of
gravity is lower and (2) the area of the base is larger.

These principles of stability are utilized in the designing of
automobiles with lower and lower centers of gravity." (Physics for Our
Times, by Walter G. Marburger and Charles W. Hoffman, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc.)

Because my two dogs bring my center of gravity closer to the ground and
respond to my own instability, it can be scientifically proven that they
assist my mobility and stability while walking. My center of gravity
ends up to be where forces connected to my dogs act on my legs. This is
closer to the ground than the end of my spinal chord and increases the
width of my base. This is why a car can stay upright when a motorcycle
cannot, but needs a kick stand. The base is larger. I cannot feel my
legs or my feet most of the time because my medication eases the pain I
would other wise have to deal with and pain has nothing to do with the
sensations that create balance. Pain interferes with those nerve relays
that create the sensations necessary for balance and stability.

If one factors in force, speed, distance and other variables, the
results are still the same, that my two dogs assist me in remaining
stable and in motion while walking and more stable or on my feet while
just standing up. The math gets more complicated if biology, neurology,
neuro-physics and neuro-chemistry are factored in, but despite its
complexity, the health benefits my dogs do for me is beyond question.

Figure A Figure B

In Fig. A, the base is wider due to the combined length of my leashes
plus the span of my arms and is weighted down by my two dogs. This gives
my body more stability, as it would increase the force needed to topple
me over. In Fig. B is an illustration of my spinal chord and the narrow
width attached to my center of gravity. The space between my feet (1
foot) reduces the force needed to topple me over, lessens my
equilibrium, making me unstable and in danger of falling. As this
logical explanation that obeys the laws of reason and physics explains
why my neurological injuries are assisted with the use of two dogs,
there can be no argument from a reasonable person in a court of law. To
argue with physics and reason and win, the legal system would have to be
as insane as the defendants. One would have to successively argue with
every physicist that exists and counter every physics equation that is
used to construct bridges, buildings, roads, medical offices and
hospitals. I don't think WCDSS has the arguments necessary to refute
physics.

WCDSS' contention that 'service dogs' are "trained to work or perform
specific tasks for the benefit of the person with a disability by a
professional service dog training center or professional service dog
trainer and used for such purposes is incorrect. According to the ADA
service animals are individually trained, but do not require any
certification to be service animals. They are not required to be trained
by "professional service dog trainers" or have the training done in a
"professional service dog training center." I don't know where DSS gets
its information, but it doesn't come from the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Many disabled people lack the money to purchase
pre-trained dogs. Persons who lack sight or hearing may be able to
benefit more from professionally trained dogs, but it is not a
necessity. Some blind persons may prefer to train their own dogs and
this is their right to do so. As I have already pointed out, dogs cannot
be trained to love their owners and love is an important ingredient to
the relationship forged between a service animal and the owners they
assist. The desire to help a human is one that has to be developed
through mutual trust, mutual respect, real affection and the love that
makes positive responses to human needs more spontaneous. These
relationships cannot be forced, but must be nurtured over time.

As pointed out earlier, there are no laws in New York State or within
the federal government that prohibit my creative solutions to my own
problems. My unique solution to my own problems may not be so unique,
but I don't have the resources to hunt down all other disabled people
who might find two dogs the best way to respond to physical limitations.
Under the law, I have the right to find ways to live that outfit me to
function to the best of my ability. I need help doing so and choose dogs
to help me. Since I was born, I always have had a dog for a companion.
This is my nature and no one can change it, not even myself. No one has
the right to question the nature with which God or nature endowed me. I
need not defend the right to be endowed by nature.

I could add that my dogs are hounds. Their breed historically has
functioned better when doing their work together. Trackers don't limit
themselves to using one hound, and use these working dogs in groups.
They perform a service for trackers and are considered working or
"service" dogs. No law prohibits trackers or those working at disaster
sites from using more than one dog to get a job accomplished. These dogs
are experienced in saving lives and doing the work they are individually
trained to do. Changing handlers or having someone other than the
handler train a dog, never works out as well as having the trainer and
handler be the same person. This is a proven phenomenon. I know more
about dogs than my doctors, WCDSS or their attorney. This is a fact, not
opinion.

Sincerely,

Amy L. Sliter