Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive applications, yet their behavior with respect to disability remains underexplored. We study disability aware descriptions for person centric images, where models often transition from evidence grounded factual description to interpretation shift including introduction of unsupported inferences beyond observable visual evidence. To systematically analyze this phenomenon, we introduce a benchmark based on paired Neutral Prompts (NP) and Disability-Contextualised Prompts (DP) and evaluate 15 state-of-the-art open- and closed-source VLMs under a zero-shot setting across 9 disability categories. Our evaluation framework treats interpretive fidelity as core objective and combines standard text-based metrics capturing affective degradation through shifts in sentiment, social regard and response length with an LLM-as-judge protocol, validated by annotators with lived experience of disability. We find that introducing disability context consistently degrades interpretive fidelity, inducing interpretation shifts characterised by speculative inference, narrative elaboration, affective degradation and deficit oriented framing. These effects are further amplified along race and gender dimension. Finally, we demonstrate targeted prompting and preference fine-tuning effectively improves interpretive fidelity and reduces substantially interpretation shifts.