Both strike me as rather odd ways to express the same idea.

In the first, "paralyzed" here can be analysed as an adjective. "Made" is a way of indicating a cause. Compare this with, "It made him happy".

In second, "paralyzed" can be analysed as a past participle, and this is a "got" passive. These refer to actions, typically actions with results. Compare this with "get married" (which is more dynamic, in contrast to the more static be married).

So both refer to an action which caused a resulting state of paralysis. But a simpler and better way to express this is just to used the verb "paralyse": The bullet paralysed Angelo. The frisbee accident paralysed David.

Both strike me as rather odd ways to express the same idea.

In the first, "paralyzed" here can be analysed as an adjective. "Made" is a way of indicating a cause. Compare this with, "It made him happy".

In second, "paralyzed" can be analysed as a past participle, and this is a "got" passive. These refer to actions, typically actions with results. Compare this with "get married" (which is more dynamic, in contrast to the more static be married).

So both refer to an action which caused a resulting state of paralysis. But a simpler and better way to express this is just to used the verb "paralyse": The bullet paralysed Angelo. The frisbee accident paralysed David.

The "made me {}" needs an adjective, and "disabled" is an adjective, so "made me disabled" is possible. Get me disabled seems wrong, and unidiomatic, probably because we understand that this was the opposite to what the doctor was trying to achieve.

The verb to "fire" has a participle, but this isn't treated as a proper adjective. It is tied to the action, not the description. And so "made me fired" doesn't work. But get me fired does. It does suggest that the colleague was trying to get you fired.