While Erevelles emphasis on a historical-materialist approach to disability studies is to be applauded, not least for the attention to detail brought to it, I take issue with the way posthumanism is presented. It strikes me that Erevelles has not understood Deleuze and Guattari's concept of desire, or the contribution posthuman philosophy has made to political economy (and vice versa). First off, contrary to the author's opinion that D&G's theory of desire neglects historical materialism, I would argue that historical materialism is foundational to desire as they see it. From a disability studies perspective, this objection may seem obscure or unnecessary - the problem is, Erevelles sets historical materialism against posthumanism, misrepresenting it and drawing it into an unnecessary dichotomy.
Beyond that, this is a worthy contribution to disability studies, and worth a look if you're interested in the work Michael Oliver and Colin Barnes.