SSD Embarrassment

Most people applying for Social Security Disability ("SSD") benefits or Supplemental Security Income benefits ("SSI") understand that their doctors need to support the disability claims.  What most people don't know is that their doctors must support the inability to work at any full time job.  The Social Security Administration ("SSA") evaluates if there are any occupations in the economy that exist "in significant numbers" that a claimant could perform.   The SSA doesn't care if the occupations they find are still in existence, or performed in the same manner, or what the purported jobs pay.  The SSA only cares about denying as many cases as possible, even if their methods are questionable and inaccurate.

The SSA relies on testimony from a "Vocational Expert" ("VE") at hearing.  The VE uses an antiquated publication called the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT") to come up with jobs that a claimant could do when the claimant can't perform their own occupation.  The DOT was updated in 1977.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a lot has changed in the last 45 years, especially in the ways jobs are performed.  A lot of the jobs in the DOT don't even exist anymore.  Claimants are continuously denied SSD/SSI benefits when a VE finds jobs in the DOT that claimants supposedly can do, and then the VE uses unreliable methods to estimate how many of these jobs are available nationwide.  The SSA wastes billions of dollars, and can never seem to make the necessary updates and changes to their system to be able to make more accurate assessments and decisions.  It's embarrassing!

It is vitally important that you retain an experienced attorney who specializes in disability and knows how the system works.  We have over three decades of experience working with the SSA and its Administrative Law Judges ("ALJs"), cross examining the medical experts and VEs, which requires a thorough understanding of the DOT and ONET.  Unlike many other disability attorneys, if an ALJ denies your claim, we can appeal your case to Federal Court, where we can succeed in obtaining a new hearing, or an approval of benefits.  While we cannot guarantee the outcome, we can guarantee that we will fight for you to make certain you get a fair hearing.

Please feel free to call our office for a free phone consultation.  We have offices conveniently located on Long Island in both Nassau and Suffolk counties.

Approved In Under Two Months

As the Washington Post just reported, the system for processing applications for Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits is more overburdened than ever.  Knowing how to navigate the process is more important than ever.

We represent a 60 year old barber from Fresh Meadows with cancer.  We succeeded in obtaining SSD benefits in less than two months during the time when most claimants are waiting years.  Understanding what was needed, and promptly obtaining and submitting it, enabled us to expedite securing the claimant's benefits.

CE Boondoggle Continues

Time to discuss again the needless demands the State agency makes for a Social Security Disability (“SSD”) claimant to attend a consultative examination (“CE”).

Since the last Century, virtually every CE notice I have received has violated the Social Security regulations.  Demanding a CE means the State agency refuses to believe what the treating doctors say.  The CEs have delayed claimants’ receipt of SSD benefits, wasted taxpayer money, and wasted the time of administrative law judges.  To make matters worse, the State agency has insisted on CEs throughout COVID.

I represent a 47 year old former clerk from Glen Cove with multiple sclerosis (“MS”), bladder cancer and depression.  Despite supportive reports and records from the claimant’s urologist, neurologist and psychiatrist, the State agency denied SSD benefits because the claimant, with a compromised immune system due to cancer, would not attend a CE.

The case was approved today without a hearing.  As soon as an attorney from the Social Security Administration received the case, it was approved OTR.  The four demands for the claimant to attend a CE obviously were unnecessary.

Does the State agency have an unwritten regulation that requires they insist that every claimant attend a CE?  Doubtful.  More likely, the State agency examiners are too lazy or too busy to read the file.  Therefore, the examiners want to disregard all the medical evidence in the file, and just want to rely on what the CE says.

 

ALJ Grossman Reversed Again

Only 14% of cases that the Appeals Council reviews are reversed.  As a statistical matter, the odds of a case being reversed by the Appeals Council twice are an infinitesimal .0196%.  However, those odds increase greatly when a decision of administrative law judge (“ALJ”) Seth Grossman is being reviewed.

ALJ Grossman has a very low approval rate, and a reputation for issuing biased decisions.  As a result, I have filed extensive Complaints and requests for investigations pursuant to Social Security Ruling SSR 13-1 at the request of clients.

Yesterday, the Appeals Council reversed a decision by ALJ Grossman, for the second time.  The Appeals Council determined that Grossman had committed fundamental errors yet again.  Consequently, the Appeals Council ruled that it would be inappropriate for further review by ALJ Grossman, and ordered that the case be reassigned to another ALJ.