Social Security Act was enacted in 1935 to provide economic security when individuals reached retirement age. The idea was that when people become older, they gradually lose the ability to work on a full time basis. It was not until 1956 that Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits were added. The reasoning was that many people become unable to work before they reach retirement age, and they need economic security also.
Age may impacts an individual’s entitlement to SSD benefits in two ways. The older you are, the more likely you have generated a long work history. Also, with the passage of time, the chances increase that a person will sustain an injury or illness that diminishes functionality, especially with progressive medical conditions.
We represent two claimants whose SSD applications were approved today after hearings. One was a pain specialist from West Hampton Beach, and the other was a stock trader from Commack. Both were 60 years old, and both had long work histories, which the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found supported the credibility of their complaints and testimony. Both claimants also had orthopedic complaints that were consistent with multiple objective diagnostic MRI and EMG tests. Recent rules and regulations require an ALJ to place greater emphasis on objective evidence.
Both claimants were looking for a Long Island Disability Attorney and were referred to me by other attorneys. They are very happy with the outcome of their cases!
Friday, January 10, 2020
Friday, January 3, 2020
Prudential Disability Rating
Over 100 people rated Prudential’s disability insurance at ConsumerAffairs.com. The result – one out of five stars. I have represented countless claimants against Prudential, and agree with that one star rating. Notably, it is not possible to give a zero star rating.
A nurse from Manhasset with multiple medical conditions, including Lupus, transverse myelitis, and myelomacia, retained us after Prudential denied her application for long term disability benefits. Prudential claimed that the nurse should still be able to perform her job on a full time basis.
The claimant received her approval today for Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits. To qualify for the SSD benefits, not only was the claimant required to show that she was unable to perform her job as a nurse, but also that she was unable to perform any job on a full time basis.
A nurse from Manhasset with multiple medical conditions, including Lupus, transverse myelitis, and myelomacia, retained us after Prudential denied her application for long term disability benefits. Prudential claimed that the nurse should still be able to perform her job on a full time basis.
The claimant received her approval today for Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits. To qualify for the SSD benefits, not only was the claimant required to show that she was unable to perform her job as a nurse, but also that she was unable to perform any job on a full time basis.
The
claimant initially contacted my office because I am a Long Island Disability
Attorney; specializing in both SSD and LTD, with offices in Nassau and Suffolk
counties. The claimant was looking for
a Disability Attorney who could handle both her SSD and LTD claims. We are happy to be able to help her with
both.
Thursday, December 26, 2019
New Opinion Weighing
The Social Security Administration hopes that eliminating the treating physician rule will substantially reduce the number of disability applications that get approved.
We represent a 44 year old former mail carrier from Seaford. She was referred to us by her sister-in-law, a former client whose Social Security Disability ("SSD") benefits were approved a few years ago. The mail carrier was looking for a SSD attorney on Long Island. Her back problem was well supported by objective medical data. However, it was not until a few days after the claimant’s hearing that we finally were able to provide a report assessing her functional limitations from her orthopedist. This case illustrates how at least one administrative law judge (“ALJ”) weighs medical opinions under the new rules.
The ALJ found the claimant disabled by finding the opinion of the orthopedist and the medical expert (“ME”) persuasive. The ALJ found the orthopedist persuasive because he personally examined the claimant over an extended period of time, his functional assessment was very recent, and the assessment was corroborated by the ME. The ALJ found the ME persuasive because he had full access to the claimant’s medical history.
While the ALJ found personal examinations, length of treatment, and reviewing all medical records to be important, he did not indicate which were more important. Since both the orthopedist and ME concluded the claimant lacked a sedentary work capacity, the ALJ did not need to say whether he found the orthopedist or the ME more persuasive. There was no indication if personal examinations and the length of treatment was more important than reviewing all the records.
Had the ME’s opinion contradicted the orthopedist’s opinion, it is possible that the ALJ would have found the ME more persuasive. It seems advisable that when treating sources are asked to provide functional limitations, they should also be given all medical records to review, which should be reflected in their assessments.
We represent a 44 year old former mail carrier from Seaford. She was referred to us by her sister-in-law, a former client whose Social Security Disability ("SSD") benefits were approved a few years ago. The mail carrier was looking for a SSD attorney on Long Island. Her back problem was well supported by objective medical data. However, it was not until a few days after the claimant’s hearing that we finally were able to provide a report assessing her functional limitations from her orthopedist. This case illustrates how at least one administrative law judge (“ALJ”) weighs medical opinions under the new rules.
The ALJ found the claimant disabled by finding the opinion of the orthopedist and the medical expert (“ME”) persuasive. The ALJ found the orthopedist persuasive because he personally examined the claimant over an extended period of time, his functional assessment was very recent, and the assessment was corroborated by the ME. The ALJ found the ME persuasive because he had full access to the claimant’s medical history.
While the ALJ found personal examinations, length of treatment, and reviewing all medical records to be important, he did not indicate which were more important. Since both the orthopedist and ME concluded the claimant lacked a sedentary work capacity, the ALJ did not need to say whether he found the orthopedist or the ME more persuasive. There was no indication if personal examinations and the length of treatment was more important than reviewing all the records.
Had the ME’s opinion contradicted the orthopedist’s opinion, it is possible that the ALJ would have found the ME more persuasive. It seems advisable that when treating sources are asked to provide functional limitations, they should also be given all medical records to review, which should be reflected in their assessments.
Listings
Meeting a “listing” is one way to establish entitlement to Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits. Frequently, all the criteria of a listing may apply to a claimant, but the treatment records may not reflect each criterion. Recognizing the potential applicability of a particular listing, and that some criteria are absent from the treatment records can be overcome.
I represent a 42 year old graphic designer from Long Island with various back problems. While he received extensive treatment for his back, including lumbar surgery and MRI testing, the records did not reflect that he always met all of the listing criteria. Therefore, we tailored forms for the claimant’s spine specialist to complete that addressed the criteria for listing 1.04, and the response revealed that the claimant did in fact satisfy each element.
At the hearing, a medical expert (“ME”) testified that the claimant met listing 1.04. Moreover, the ME testified that even if the claimant did not meet or equal the listing, the medical evidence, including the spine specialist’s report, reflected the inability to perform sedentary work. Since the claimant was 42 years old, without the responses to the form we prepared for the spine specialist, the claimant probably would have been denied SSD benefits. This is another example of why it is so important to retain an attorney who specializes in SSD claims. If you are thinking about applying for SSD benefits, please contact my office for a free phone consultation. We have offices that are conveniently located in both Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island.
I represent a 42 year old graphic designer from Long Island with various back problems. While he received extensive treatment for his back, including lumbar surgery and MRI testing, the records did not reflect that he always met all of the listing criteria. Therefore, we tailored forms for the claimant’s spine specialist to complete that addressed the criteria for listing 1.04, and the response revealed that the claimant did in fact satisfy each element.
At the hearing, a medical expert (“ME”) testified that the claimant met listing 1.04. Moreover, the ME testified that even if the claimant did not meet or equal the listing, the medical evidence, including the spine specialist’s report, reflected the inability to perform sedentary work. Since the claimant was 42 years old, without the responses to the form we prepared for the spine specialist, the claimant probably would have been denied SSD benefits. This is another example of why it is so important to retain an attorney who specializes in SSD claims. If you are thinking about applying for SSD benefits, please contact my office for a free phone consultation. We have offices that are conveniently located in both Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island.
Friday, November 22, 2019
Peripheral Arterial Disease
Peripheral Arterial Disease (“PAD”) is a circulatory problem in which narrowed arteries reduce blood flow to your limbs. According to the Mayo Clinic, the lack of blood flow causes pain, numbness and cramping that is triggered by activity. And according to the American Heart Association, people with diabetes are especially at high risk for PAD.
Diabetes induced PAD creates a Catch-22. Elevating the legs is advised for diabetics who have painful or swollen feet. However, elevating the legs can exacerbate leg pain for PADS patients. I represent a claimant with diabetes induced PAD whose Social Security Disability (“SSD”) case was approved today in large part because of the Catch-22.
While my claimant had an extensive work history, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) wanted to know primarily why the claimant could not work. I explained that the claimant’s legs and feet were always painful. Her endocrinologist wanted the claimant to elevate her feet when sitting, which the vocational expert said precluded work. The claimant’s cardiologist wanted the claimant to rest because of the PAD, but noted that elevating her legs could cause pain, and in fact, the claimant’s leg pain was worse when lying down at night, resulting in very poor sleep. The ALJ noted the sleep deprivation provided additional grounds that supported the claimant being off task and unable to work.
The claimant was referred to me by her husband, who was a previous client of mine, and whose claim was also approved. As he was happy with the outcome of his claim, it was an obvious decision to refer his wife to me, and he knew that my expertise as a Social Security Disability attorney would produce the same outcome for his wife. My Long Island office in Nassau County was also convenient for him and his wife, although because of their disabilities, we were able to accommodate their not having to visit the office in person.
Diabetes induced PAD creates a Catch-22. Elevating the legs is advised for diabetics who have painful or swollen feet. However, elevating the legs can exacerbate leg pain for PADS patients. I represent a claimant with diabetes induced PAD whose Social Security Disability (“SSD”) case was approved today in large part because of the Catch-22.
While my claimant had an extensive work history, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) wanted to know primarily why the claimant could not work. I explained that the claimant’s legs and feet were always painful. Her endocrinologist wanted the claimant to elevate her feet when sitting, which the vocational expert said precluded work. The claimant’s cardiologist wanted the claimant to rest because of the PAD, but noted that elevating her legs could cause pain, and in fact, the claimant’s leg pain was worse when lying down at night, resulting in very poor sleep. The ALJ noted the sleep deprivation provided additional grounds that supported the claimant being off task and unable to work.
The claimant was referred to me by her husband, who was a previous client of mine, and whose claim was also approved. As he was happy with the outcome of his claim, it was an obvious decision to refer his wife to me, and he knew that my expertise as a Social Security Disability attorney would produce the same outcome for his wife. My Long Island office in Nassau County was also convenient for him and his wife, although because of their disabilities, we were able to accommodate their not having to visit the office in person.
Saturday, November 9, 2019
LTD Doctor Scam
I have been a disability attorney on Long Island for two decades, and in that time, there has been no improvement in the way Long Term Disability (LTD) Insurance companies process their claims. Their bottom line is profit, and denying hundreds of thousands of claims that qualify for approval. One of the major tactics disability insurers use is hiring doctors, who failed to succeed in their medical practices. Disability insurers essentially pay these failed doctors to fabricate excuses to deny insureds their LTD benefits, without even performing an examination. Only an attorney who specializes in Disability Law can help you fight these insurance companies, and win.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
COLA
Social Security recently announced a 1.6% cost of living adjustment for recipients of SSD and SSI benefits. The adjustment goes into affect in January, but in December you can see how much the dollar increase will be by logging onto your account at ssa.gov.
If you are not receiving benefits but are thinking about applying, you should consider hiring an attorney who specializes in disability. Please do not hesitate to contact my office staff for a free phone consultation. We have offices in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.
If you are not receiving benefits but are thinking about applying, you should consider hiring an attorney who specializes in disability. Please do not hesitate to contact my office staff for a free phone consultation. We have offices in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
