LTD Approvals

We obtained reversals of a long term disability (“LTD”) denial and a termination this week from Hartford and Lincoln.  What they had in common was submitting overwhelming objective and subjective medical and vocational evidence.  We advised each client in advance that the reports, records, tests, and letters we needed might seem like gilding the lily to them, but our track record for successfully securing LTD benefits speaks for itself.

Consultative Exams ("CEs") and the State agency ("DDS")

I get more questions about CEs than any other topic.  DDS schedules CEs before they even request records from the claimant's treating doctors, who according to Social Security's own rules are the "preferred source" for medical information.

I represent a 48 year old Medical Assistant from Bay Shore whose impairments cause suffering from debilitating pain.  The DDS representative handling the case told my office that this was a very strong case, with an overabundance of medical evidence.  Nonetheless, the representative still denied Social Security Disability ("SSD") benefits solely because the claimant did not attend a CE.

My client was approved today at her hearing.  The ALJ acknowledged all of the supporting objecting evidence I obtained from the claimant's treating doctors, which included MRI's, scans and other objective test results.  The ALJ found the claimant's testimony to be credible, consistent with the treatment provided, and the treating doctors' opinions to be persuasive.  The fact that the claimant did not attend a CE was not even mentioned.

DDS continues to practice the boondoggle policy of scheduling needless CEs for claimants.  The CE gives DDS the excuse to ignore the large amounts of medical information in the file, and deny the claim based on the vague CE opinions, which the federal courts uniformly deride.  CEs delay benefits as they force claimants to defend themselves against the typically fraudulent exams those doctors perform.

My client is extremely happy that she retained an experienced disability attorney who was able to obtain a favorable outcome for her, rather than trying to take on Social Security by herself. Please call my office for a free phone consultation if you are thinking about applying for SSD benefits.  My office is conveniently located in Melville, Long Island.

 

 

MS

The disabling effects of MS when it attacks the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerves is well known. Nonetheless, while the overwhelming fatigue, pain, numbness, and poor coordination that results from MS have not changed, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) made it near impossible to meet the listing for MS. Therefore, obtaining Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits for MS depends on demonstrating that its functional limitations preclude being able to work, just as is true for most medical impairments.

I represent a 38 year old from Whitestone with MS who worked as a food service manager. The MS diagnosis was never questioned. However, the State agency denied her SSD application because it refused to believe that the claimant’s symptoms were severe enough to preclude her from working on a full time basis.

We obtained a report from the treating physical therapist detailing the claimant’s functional limitations. But the State agency denied the claim. We then submitted a report from the treating neurologist that corroborated the claimant’s functional limitations, yet the claim still was denied. Only after filing a report from the surgeon treating the claimant’s cervical and lumbar spine disorders, which concurred with the limitations assessed by the physical therapist and neurologist, were SSD benefits approved.

With the elimination of a meaningful listing, it took 11 months to get SSD benefits approved. While that may seem quick since it takes many SSD applicants years to secure approval, the application justified approval much sooner.

It is always in your best interest to retain an experienced disability attorney if you plan on applying for SSD. Please call our Melville office for a free phone consultation.

SSA Backlogs

We received the email below, from the Social Security Administration, notifying us that due to the backlog of initial disability claims, the wait time for a disability determination has increased from 90-120 day to 200-230 days. 

Dear Colleague, In the past, the notice sent to claimants when we  receive disability internet claims submitted by a third-party stated that claimants would receive a  disability determination within 90-120 days. However, due to the backlog of initial disability  claims, it has been taking an average of 200-230 days  for claimants to receive a disability determination. We understand this may be confusing to claimants  and can result in unnecessary calls to our offices.  To provide better expectations for when a claimant  should expect to receive a decision, we have updated  the notice to reflect the current timeframe of 200-230  days.We continue to review and update our notices to  ensure they are clear and accurate. This is the first  change with more expected to come. We appreciate your continued support. Sincerely, Dawn Bystry Associate Commissioner Office of Strategic and Digital Communications

DDS Disrespect

After we receive a favorable decision for a client, our representation ends.  But many of our clients are subject to reviews by the  Social Security Administration ("SSA").  The timeframe of the review varies for each individual client, dependent on an ALJ's recommendation upon approving a claim.  The time frame for the review can be anywhere from 12 months to 3 years from the decision.  We always advise our clients to continue treatment with their doctors, because if they don't, then the SSA will interpret that to mean they have improved and are no longer disabled.

We periodically receive phone calls from former clients, advising us that they are being reviewed.  Even though we no longer represent them, we do try to help them through the process.

We received a phone call from a former client, who was under review.  He suffers from severe anxiety and agoraphobia.  He told us that he had received a letter notifying him that he needed to attend a Consultative Exam.  We recommended that he call his doctors and ask them if they had received a request from the State agency for updated records, and if they had, to make sure they sent the requested records back to the State agency as soon as possible.  When he spoke to his doctors, they had not received a request from the State agency for their records.  We told our client to call the analyst at the State agency, who was handling his case, and ask her why she was sending him for a CE when she hadn't even requested records from his doctors.  His doctors were more than happy to cooperate.

Our client called us to let us know that he had spoken to the analyst.  He told us that the analyst was extremely rude to him, and made him feel like he had done something wrong.  All this did was make someone with extreme anxiety even more anxious.  This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that we've been told by a client that they've been treated like this by an employee of the SSA.

We advised our client to call the analyst's supervisor to report this analyst.  No one deserves to be treated with such disrespect.  It's one thing when it's directed at us, we are used to it, but it is completely unacceptable for a State agency analyst, or any SSA employee, to speak to a claimant in such a manner.

Our client reached the supervisor who brushed off his complaint about the analyst's behavior towards him, but the supervisor did  advise him that they had received the records from his doctors and he did not have to attend the CE.  If the analyst had done her job properly from the beginning, our client would not have been thrown into a state of severe anxiety.

If you find yourself in a situation such as this, don't be afraid to contact a supervisor and report the behavior of the analyst or the SSA employee who has treated you this way.  Don't be afraid to advocate for yourself.  You have been approved for disability.  If you are still disabled and have not improved since you were approved for SSD, then your doctors' records will support that.

 

IMA Disability

I used to surmise that the State agency has an unwritten regulation that requires it to insist that every Social Security Disability (“SSD”) claimant attend a consultative examination (“CE”).  I have to come realize that because the State agency examiners and medical consultants are too lazy or too busy to read the claimants’ file, they disregard all the medical evidence in the file, and simply rubberstamp whatever CE concludes.  Therefore, the State agency sends letters to claimants requiring them to attend CEs by IMA.

When attending CEs, we have our clients confirm that the IMA doctors do not review any medical records.  Thus, the State agency does in fact ignore all the medical evidence in claimants’ files other than the CE report.

We represent a 60 year old teacher assistant from Brooklyn with physical and mental impairments.  The State agency sent a letter to the claimant to attend two, not one, IMA CEs.  I sent a letter asking the State agency to explain how the scheduled CEs complied with the regulations.  I never received a response to my letter, but a couple of weeks later, the State agency notified us that the claimant’s  SSD application was approved.

Before we agree to represent our clients, we always emphasize how important it is for them to speak with their doctors to confirm they will support the client's inability to work full time.  As soon as we file an application for SSD benefits, we request the client's medical records, and submit them as soon as possible after obtaining them.

 

 

 

VE Rebuttal

A Washington Post article from last year unveiled how administrative law judges (“ALJs”) rely on patently erroneous and obsolete occupational information to deny Social Security Disability (“SSD”) applications.  ALJs asked Larry Underwood to serve as a vocational expert (“VE”) for a quarter century.  Mr. Underwood told the Washington Post that:

"I realized that a lot of vocational experts, including myself, have been giving false testimony for years...The numbers are no accurate.  I decided I can't do that anymore."

Since Social Security has neglected to state what special knowledge, experience, or training is required to qualify as a VE, a VE is more accurately denominated as vocational witness (“VW”).  Despite the fact that a proper cross examination of a VW will reveal that their responses to an ALJ are unsupportable, most ALJ’s accept the VW’s testimony anyway in order to deny SSD benefits.  When it appears that an ALJ will disregard testimony during cross examination of a VW, the claimant should retain a truly independent VW to rebut the Social Security VW.

I represent a 36 year old from East Northport with numerous orthopedic impairments, who had worked as a police officer.  The VW testified that the claimant could perform occupations that courts have ruled are obsolete.  Nonetheless, the ALJ was prepared to accept the VW’s testimony, but my cross examination of the VW could not be completed due to time constraints.  The ALJ stated that he would schedule a supplemental hearing, but I could submit a brief instead to expedite a decision.

I submitted a vocational report from an independent VW, which supported my arguments about that the occupations the Social Security VW had cited were obsolete.  Today, a week before the hearing, the ALJ agreed, and issued a fully favorable OTR.

My claimant is so grateful that I was able to obtain the OTR, and that she did not have to wait for another hearing.  It is important if you plan on applying for SSD, that you retain a disability attorney, like myself, who has years of experience working with Social Security, and knows the system inside and out.

My office offers phone consultations for anyone thinking of applying, or has already applied, for SSD.