Saturday, April 17th, 2021
  • HOME
  • FREE PHONE CONSULTATION
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT LAWYER

www.iwantmydisability.com

Nassau: 366 North Broadway Suite 410 Jericho, NY 11753
Suffolk: 445 Broad Hollow Road Suite 25 Melville, NY 11747
Call Us Toll-Free: (888) 572-0861   Email: jd@iwantmydisability.com

  • HOME
  • ABOUT
    • Disability Attorney
    • FREE PHONE CONSULTATION
  • RESOURCES
    • Useful Links
    • Docket Search
    • Court Decisions
    • Newsday Editorials
      • Editorial 8-25-11
      • Editorial 8-13-12
  • DISABILITY CLAIM FAQ
  • SERVICES
    • Applying For Disability Benefits
    • Disability Appeals
    • Negotiation
    • Disability Claim Litigation
    • Post Approval Supervision
  • CIGNA
    • CIGNA RSA
    • ABC News Expose
    • CIGNA Blog Entries
    • CIGNA Decisions
  • TESTIMONIALS
  • CONTACT

cc

Contact Us

Practice Areas

Social Security Disability

Disability Insurance Policies

Long Term Disability Plans

Union Disability Pension

NYS and NYC Disability Retirement

Federal Disability Retirement

Free Phone Consultation

Free Phone Consultation

 

Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.

Bookmark and Share

Follow us on Facebook

Saturday, December 22nd, 2007

TBI and Vocational Evidence

The focus on disability claims is almost always on medical evidence because claimants seek benefits on the grounds their medical condition prevents them from working. However, situations arise where there is little or no medical evidence. For example, the claimant might be unable to afford medical treatment, or perhaps further medical treatment cannot improve the medical condition. In these types of circumstances the vocational evidence could be helpful.

I represented a 52 year old woman claimant who suffered a traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) and other physical injuries as a result of a car accident while crossing a street in Manhattan. Her physical injuries had heeled. Essentially, her medical treatment was limited to a psychologist, who indicated the claimant’s mental problems had largely resolved except for her cognitive deficits. Nonetheless, I was able to secure her disability benefits in only four months.

Like most cases, the key to obtaining the disability benefits was establishing the credibility of the claimant’s allegations regarding the severity of her limitations. I described the serious nature of the accident, which not only killed her husband, but also required her to have extensive hospitalization. I pointed out that prior to her accident, the claimant was a high functioning executive earning over $90,000 a year. In contrast, while the claimant had made a significant recovery from the year old accident, I emphasized that the claimant resides in an assisted living facility. Those are not medical facts, but they explained why the claimant should be believed when she claimed she could not work.

Monday, December 17th, 2007

Failure To Receive Notice

What happens if you don’t receive a copy of an unfavorable decision from the Administrative Law Judge who denied your Social Security Disability (“SSD”) application, and therefore, you don’t appeal on time? What happens if the Appeals Council then refuses to hear your appeal because it’s not filed on time? That sounds unfair, and it is. I took over a case from another attorney who was faced with that very situation.

After the Appeals Council rejects a request for review, the claimant’s final resort is going to federal court. Under the circumstances described above, the only relief that a federal court can provide is a remand for a hearing before the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) regarding whether the claimant had good cause for requesting review belatedly.

It would have taken months if not years for the SSA to file its administrative record, have the parties brief the matter, and the wait for the district court to issue its decision. To avoid the wait, I supplied an affidavit from the claimant’s prior attorney detailing his normal business practices and the circumstances that led to the late filing. The U.S. Attorney provided the affidavit, and case law directly on point in the claimant’s favor, to counsel for the SSA. The result was that the SSA voluntarily agreed to remand the case without having to litigate the matter.

When litigating SSD claims, it pays to research the case thoroughly before filing. Even if you do not wind up briefing the case, the research can provide the basis for a discussion with the U.S. Attorney who might be persuaded to voluntarily remand the action.
Posted by The Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott at 10:21 AM

Saturday, December 15th, 2007

Mental Disorders

Many clients tell me that they have been told, even by attorneys who practice Social Security law, that it is very hard to secure social security disability (“SSD”) benefits based upon mental impairments. The truth is that while different standards may be used, obtaining benefits for a mental disorder is no more difficult than obtaining benefits for an equally severe physical condition. The problem may be that most people simply do not know how to establish the severity of a mental condition properly.

A 27 year old claimant came to me after his SSD application was denied on the grounds that his mental disorder was not severe enough to prevent him from working. I did a couple of things to help establish the severity of his condition. First, I had the psychiatrist assess the claimant ability to handle mental tasks. Second, because the assessment was rather severe, I then asked whether the claimant met a listing, which the psychiatrist said the claimant did. When a claimant meets a listing the claimant is presumptively deemed disabled. Third, I advised the claimant to start seeing a psychologist too. The psychiatrist concurred with the findings and conclusions of the psychiatrist. Thus, the claimant now had two very strong treating opinions regarding his limited mental functionality.

Because the findings and conclusions of the psychologist and psychiatrist were so supportive of the claimant’s diminished mental functional capacity, I submitted an request for an on the record (“OTR”) decision. The OTR was approved in less than two months. The end result is that the client avoided having to confront the stress of a hearing. Just as importantly, the claimant did not have to wait two years for a hearing before having his application approved

Saturday, December 15th, 2007

Inability To Speak English

When applying for social security disability (“SSD”) benefits, it is important to mention a claimant’s inability to communicate in English. A client’s application was approved today which illustrates this point.

The claimant, who was born March 20, 1957 and was 49 years old at the onset of his disability, was from El Salvador and could not read, write or speak English. The claimant’s past work was all unskilled, manual labor.

The claimant’s application was approved less than two months after submitting a request for a fully favorable decision on the record (“OTR”), which meant he did not have to wait two years for a hearing. The application was approved based on the “medical-vocational rules” 201.17 and 201.09. Without discussing the medical vocational or “grid rules” in detail, rule 201.17 requires a person between the ages of 45 and 49 with an unskilled work history to be found disabled if unable to communicate in English. In contrast, if the claimant were able to speak English, the grid rules require that the claimant be found not disabled.

This case illustrates how vocational evidence can be just as important as medical evidence.

Friday, December 14th, 2007

Discovery In ERISA Cases

An insurance company almost always argues that no discovery should be allowed in a long term disability (“LTD”) case because it realizes that allowing a claimant to investigate the decision making process will show that the denial or termination of benefits was unjustified. Continental Casualty Company and Hartford Life Insurance Company of New York (collectively, the “insurance companies”) made that argument this week to federal Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle, who rejected it.

The parties disagree as to the applicable standard of review, and the insurance companies argued that the standard of review must be established prior to discovery. I argued that even if the applicable standard of review were arbitrary and capricious that discovery must be allowed in order to assist the court in evaluating 1) the nature of the information considered in making the decision; 2) whether the decision maker was competent to evaluate the information; 3) how the decision maker reached its decision; 4) whether the decision maker should have sought outside technical assistance in reaching a “fair and full review” of the claim; and 5) to determine whether a conflict of interest existed.

Magistrate Judge Boyle agreed that the claimant should be allowed discovery immediately, including depositions, regardless of the standard of review. Magistrate Judge Boyle followed the reasoning of District Court Judge Hurley in McGann v. Travelers Property Cas. Corp. Welfare Ben. Plan, 2007 WL 2769500 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2007).

‘If the court finds that the administrator was in fact influenced by the conflict of interest, the deference otherwise accorded the administrator’s decision drops away and the court interprets the plan de novo.’. If the plaintiff cannot carry this burden, any conflict the administrator has is simply one more factor to be considered in determining whether the challenged decision was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery in order to show that good cause exists for considering evidence outside the record.

An LTD claimant should always insist on discovery. If insurance companies did not have so much to hide, then they would not vehemently oppose discovery. I always unearth very helpful information through discovery in LTD cases.

Friday, December 14th, 2007

Don’t Be Intimidated By DDS

The initial decision in Social Security Disability (“SSD”) cases is made by state agencies referred to as Division of Disability Determination Services (“DDDS”). Almost without exception, the DDDS will insist that a claimant be examined by doctors that it selects. Because the DDDS doctors make a living examining SSD claimants, they rarely conclude that a claimant is disabled. Furthermore, their reports usually contain examination findings that are made up.

If the DDDS truly believes that an examination is needed for additional medical information to evaluate a claim, then the DDDS must ask the treating doctor, as the “preferred source,” to perform the examination. The New Jersey DDDS kept insisting that one of my clients be examined by their doctors. I insisted that any examination would have to be performed by the claimant’s orthopedist, internist or pain management specialist, each of whom had already supplied very supportive and detailed medical evidence.

The debate regarding who should examine the claimant lasted a couple of months, and the claimant’s application was approved yesterday. However, had the claimant been examined by the DDDS doctors, who certainly would have concluded the claimant was capable of working, then the claimant’s application would have been denied, and he would have been compelled to wait close to two years for a hearing

Monday, December 10th, 2007

Multiple Sclerosis

Every once in a while the right thing happens when filing a disability claim. I submitted a Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits application for a 46 year old, college educated claimant with MS. In addition to providing all of the medical and vocational information on the application forms, all I provided were some preliminary treatment records. While the application and treatment records established the existence of MS, they did not discuss the effects the MS had on functionality.

In the absence of evidence regarding functionality, SSD applications are virtually always denied. In fact, even when supportive functionality assessments are submitted, SSD applications are frequently denied. Therefore, it was surprising to learn that the SSD application was approved in less than two months. This aberrant result should not dissuade claimants though from the cost of seeking functionality assessments as soon as practicable.

Wednesday, November 28th, 2007

Avoiding Hearings

Although a Social Security claim should be approved if the treating physician’s opinion is well supported by the medical evidence, most disability applications are denied initially by the state agency. The next step is a hearing before a Social Security administrative law judge (“ALJ”), which is about a two year wait. If the ALJ applied the treating physician rule properly, then the disability application should be approved.

While it may seem unfair to make a claimant wait years to have the treating physician rule applied properly, there is an alternative. A claimant can make an “on-the-record” (“OTR”) request for a fully favorable decision pending the hearing. The OTR basically asks that the application be approved because the medical evidence is so strong that a hearing is unnecessary.

When submitting an OTR, it is important to have a file that clearly shows an entitlement to benefits. Thus, while a single supporting physician should suffice at a hearing, it may not suffice when submitting an OTR. Therefore, furnishing medical evidence from additional treating sources is important.

I represent a 45 year old school crossing guard, whose application was denied even though it was supported by an arthritis specialist who provided a detailed report summarizing the clinical, diagnostic and subjective medical findings, and concluded that the claimant was unable to perform sedentary work. In connection with an OTR, a second report was submitted from the claimant’s treating orthopedist. Like the arthritis specialist, the orthopedist’s report summarized the clinical, diagnostic and subjective medical findings, and concluded that the claimant was unable to perform sedentary work.

The OTR was approved. As a result, the claimant did not have to wait for a hearing, go through the stress of a hearing, and had a smaller attorney fee. While it is possible that the OTR may have been approved without the report from the orthopedist, experience has shown that an OTR is usually denied when based upon medical evidence from a single supporting physician

Friday, November 23rd, 2007

Working Does Not Preclude Benefits

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) wants to encourage people to work. Depending on the circumstances, the SSA may allow a person to collect Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits during a time period in which they worked. One such circumstance is called an “unsuccessful work attempt (“UWA”)”.

I received an approval in a case today involving an UWA. The SSA originally concluded that the onset of a claimant’s disability was April 26, 2000, which is when she stopped working at a department store. Because the claimant had to prove that she became disabled before December 31, 1999, the SSA denied SSD benefits.

I took over the case when the claimant had to go to federal court. I pointed out that the claimant was injured at work in February 1997, and had not worked since the accident except for March and April 2000 at the department store. I argued that because the department store work lasted less than three months, it was an UWA, and denial of SSD benefits was wrong. The federal court agreed and remanded the case to the SSA for a new hearing.

At the second hearing, the SSA determined that the work at the department store constituted an UWA. Therefore, the SSA concluded that the claimant’s onset date was February 1997, not April 26, 2000. Because the claimant established that her disability began prior to December 31, 1999, the SSA found that she was entitled to retroactive SSD benefits, including benefits for March and April 2000.

Monday, November 19th, 2007

Be Wary of Forms

Applying for disability benefits normally means having to complete forms. However, even if forms appear to be clear they may be skewed in a manner that makes it difficult to be approved for disability benefits.

A Social Security Disability (“SSD”) claimant to me after the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) rejected her application. A review of the claimant’s file indicated that her treating doctor completed an SSA form that seemed to favor her claim. The doctor checked off the most restrictive box that the form had for sitting, which was less than six hours during an eight hour day. The least strenuous type of work is se3dentary, which requires the ability to sit for most of the day. Nonetheless, the claim had been denied because a disability examiner concluded that there were many jobs where the claimant could sit for about five hours a day, and stand and walk for the remainder.

On appeal, I had the same doctor complete one of my own forms to assess the claimant’s ability to sit during an eight hour day. The form gave the doctor nine options to circle; that is, from zero through eight hours. The doctor selected two hours, which eviscerated the argument that the medical evidence supported the claimant’s ability to perform a job where she could sit five hours a day. Accordingly, the claimant’s SSD application was approved.

There was nothing incorrect with the SSA form. However, the SSA form is designed to make some functional assessments appear less severe and possibly capable of gainful activity. When applying for disability it is important to recognize how form questions can be misleading

Saturday, November 17th, 2007

Exam Secrets

The Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) has many regulations and secrets concerning a consultative examination (“CE”). A CE is when a doctor selected by the SSA examines a claimant.

One secret is that even though the SSA has claimants sign authorizations so they can receive copies of CE reports, the SSA never provides them. The SSA also does not tell claimants that it pays the same doctors to examine thousands of claimants, and these CE doctors rarely conclude that claimants cannot work.

Being familiar with CE secrets and regulations can be critical to obtaining benefits. I just succeeded in having a 43 year old client’s disability application approved without a hearing based on such knowledge.

As usual, Disability Determination Services “DDS” represented that the claimant had to attend a CE. I advised the DDS it is not allowed to order a CE simply for a “second opinion”. However, I told the DDS that if it contended a CE was needed to provide additional information, then the regulations required that the CE be performed by the “preferred source,” which is the treating physician. The DDS agreed and the treating physician’s CE report completely supported the client’s inability to work. Nonetheless, the DDS still denied the disability application despite lacking any grounds whatsoever for doing so.
The good news is that the DDS’s conduct was so patently wrong that the SSA approved the client’s disability application less than a month after it was submitted. Had I permitted the claimant to attend a CE by the SSA’s non-preferred source, it is very unlikely that the disability application would have been approved without a hearing.

Saturday, November 10th, 2007

SSD for Firefighter

The fact that a firefighter was found disabled by the fire department does not mean that he must be found disabled by Social Security because the two agencies have different standards. A disability pension from the fire department requires proving the inability to work as a fire fighter while disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) requires proving the inability to do any type of work in most circumstances. Nonetheless, it is important to inform the SSA if a fire fighter has received a disability pension.

There are five steps to the SSA hearing process. The fourth step is can the claimant perform past work, and the fifth is can the claimant perform any other work. While the claimant has the burden of proof at the fourth step the SSA has the burden of proof at the fifth step. Since the fire department is in a better position than the SSA to determine that a claimant cannot continue to work as a fire fighter, it would be nearly impossible for the SSA to issue a contrary ruling. Therefore, the fire department’s ruling effectively shifts the burden of proof to the SSA.

The burden of proof shift is very important. I represent a firefighter who came to me after his application was denied based on the report from the SSA doctor. I obtained reports from the claimant’s doctors that contradicted the SSA doctor. Even if there were a stalemate between the doctors, the claimant would be entitled to benefits because the SSA had the burden of proof. As a result, the SSA approved the fire fighter’s benefits.

Sunday, November 4th, 2007

Consultative Examinations

Social Security Disability claims are usually denied based on the reports of consultative examinations (“CEs”). I advise my clients not to attend CEs because the regulations provide that the preferred source for performing a CE is the treating physician, and not a doctor selected by the state agency processing the initial application. There are three possible outcomes where a claimant does not attend a CE by a state agency consultant.

The first possibility is that the medical evidence supplied by the claimant and obtained by the state agency is so strong that the application gets approved despite refusal to attend the CE.

The second possibility is that the application will be denied on the grounds of non-cooperation. However, if the state agency is advised how the regulations would be violated if the CE is not performed by the treating physician, and the claimant offers to supply whatever specific medical information the state agency contends is needed to adjudicate the claim, then there is no valid basis for asserting non-cooperation. If then application is denied, the non-cooperation argument does not stand up on appeal.

The third possibility is that the state agency will agree to have the treating physician perform the CE. This is rarely the case, but when it happens, it virtually guarantees that the application will be approved on appeal if the state agency denies the application. I just had a lightning fast approval of such a case.

I represented a client whose application was denied despite the fact that I persuaded the state agency to have the treating orthopedist perform the CE, who concluded that the claimant was totally disabled and could not do any type of work. The day the claim file was transferred to the hearing office I submitted a request asking that the claimant’s application be approved based upon the evidence currently in the file. I argued that all the medical evidence, including the CE paid for by the state agency, showed the claimant was entitled to disability benefits. I received a telephone call in less than a week advising me that the application would be approved, and a written decision was received a couple of weeks later.

Thursday, November 1st, 2007

Purpose of SSD Hearing

It is a relatively rare situation where the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) contests a claimant’s alleged medical impairments. While the diagnoses are not at issue, the severity of the claimant’s medical condition is the primary issue at the vast majority of Social Security Disability (“SSD”) hearings.

When preparing for a hearing, it is critical to focus on the real purpose for holding a hearing. A hearing is required when the SSA has determined that the objective medical evidence in the file does not suffice to establish the claimant’s entitlement to SSD benefits. Therefore, a hearing is held to see if the subjective medical evidence, the claimant’s sworn testimony, is enough to establish the claimant’s entitlement to SSD benefits when added to the objective medical evidence.

Since the purpose of the hearing is to assess whether the claimant’s subjective complaints are credible, evidence establishing credibility in general should be provided. I received a fully favorable decision today that illustrates this point.

The claimant was under 50 years of age, had a high school education, and a skilled sedentary job, which qualified her as a young, skilled, well educated person. An application by such a claimant is subject to the strictest standard for entitlement to SSD benefits. While an older, less skilled or less educated person with the same medical records may have been entitled to SSD benefits, my client had to rely on her subjective complaints to augment her claim.

I did two things to bolster the claimant’s credibility. First, I conducted a direct examination eliciting the claimant’s entire work history based on her SSA earnings record, which extended 31 years including the last 13 years with the same employer. I advised the ALJ on the record that the federal courts hold that where a claimant has a long work history of continuous work at the same employer, her testimony as to her capabilities is entitled to substantial credibility, and, that a claimant’s long and honorable work history justifies the inference that when she stopped working she did so for the reasons testified to. I then pointed out that the claimant’s SSD benefits would not come close to the income of her well paying job, and that commonsense dictated that she would have continued working if able to do so.

The other tactic that I intended to use to bolster the claimant’s testimony was to have the claimant’s mother testify as a witness, but the ALJ stated that would not be necessary. That indicated the ALJ accepted the claimant’s credibility and would approve SSD benefits because failing to develop the administrative hearing record by precluding witness testimony would have been reversible error

Tuesday, October 30th, 2007

Why Wait?

Some disability attorneys do not submit medical records in support of Social Security Disability (“SSD”) claims until after the application has been denied. The rationale is that the State agency that makes the initial determination will disapprove the claim regardless of what medical evidence is submitted. Therefore, medical records are submitted only after the claim file is transferred from the State agency to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for further processing. I disagree with that approach.

Government statistics indicate that about 30% of SSD claims are approved by the State agency. While the percentage of claims approved by the SSA at the hearing level is higher, it still makes sense to present the strongest case possible at the initial level. I aggressively secure medical evidence and submit it as soon as possible to the State agency, even though it might require me to resubmit it to the SSA if an appeal is required.

I had a client’s SSD application approved today after only two and a half months. The client is thrilled because she gets her benefits sooner than expected, which also means that her attorney will be smaller. While aggressively prosecuting claims does not usually result in claims being approved this quickly, not submitting medical evidence until SSA takes over responsibility for the file all but forecloses the possibility of a rapid approval.

Tuesday, October 30th, 2007

Insurance Department Complaint

Insurance companies constantly deny and terminate Long Term Disability (“LTD”) claims without any legitimate basis because their decisions are usually subject to deferential review. Even if the basis for the denial or termination is wrong, a reviewing court will not overturn the decision unless it is patently arbitrary. Therefore, rather than paying disability benefits, insurance wrongfully deny and terminate claims because they hope a court will uphold the decision even if it is wrong.

One way to combat an insurer’s improper claims decision is by filing a complaint with the State insurance regulatory agency. Such a complaint must be filed prior to litigation, while the claim is still subject to administrative review by the insurer. I have a client from Ohio whose claim was approved by Aetna yesterday, not coincidentally after a complaint was filed with the Ohio Insurance Department.

The claimant filed her LTD application by providing all of the information required by Aetna’s application forms, including medical reports from her three treating doctors. Nonetheless, Aetna denied her application. I filed a complaint with the Insurance Department because, among other things, Aetna refused to provide a copy of the claimant’s file other than her medical records. Even though the claimant’s appeal relied on the same medical records from the same treating doctors, the application was approved after the Insurance Department complaint was filed.

If a case proceeds to federal court, in most cases the only risk for the insurer is the possibility of paying the claimant’s attorneys fees. Filing a complaint with the insurance department can result in other types of penalties and the filing itself is a blot on the insurer’s record. Furthermore, filing the insurance department complaint sends a signal to the insurer that the claimant is serious about obtaining disability benefits and most likely will litigate if necessary.

As noted above, insurers frequently risk going to court rather than paying disability benefits because they hope a court will uphold the decision even if it is wrong. Nonetheless, insurers often try to increase their chances succeeding in court by avoiding terminating or denying a claim with well developed evidentiary support. Claims that are prepared in anticipation of litigation, which includes filing insurance department complaints, vigorously rebutting all of the insurer’s arguments, and submitting both medical and vocational evidence in support of the claim, will increase the chances of securing benefits prior to having to proceed to court.

Tuesday, October 30th, 2007

Overreach For Disability Retirement

In order to obtain disability pension benefits under the New York State Retirement System, a claimant needs to show the inability to continuing working at his or her job. I have succeeded in securing benefits each time I submitted applications by providing evidence that the claimant is incapable of performing ANY work, let alone the claimant’s prior position.

A claim was approved yesterday that illustrates the above strategy. The starting point, which is frequently overlooked, is establishing the vocational demands of the claimant’s job. Obviously, the most physically and mentally strenuous, the easier it is to argue the job’s demands can no longer be met. The claimant worked in law enforcement, which clearly was not a sedentary position. The next step is showing how the medical evidence shows that claimant cannot perform the past work. However, rather than simply obtaining medical records and opinions demonstrating that the claimant could no longer perform her job in law enforcement, I showed how the medical evidence demonstrated the claimant could not perform the demands of any type of work on a full time basis, even sedentary desk work.

While many of my colleagues believe my tactics are excessive, I succeed at the initial application stage. Unlike some other sources of disability benefits, the chances of securing disability pension benefits do not increase at subsequent appeal stages. Additionally, from the client’s perspective, avoiding the time it takes to appeal an initial denial reduces attorney fees, which are typically at least partially contingent.
Posted by The Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott at 9:17 AM No comments:
Insurance Department Complaint

Insurance companies constantly deny and terminate Long Term Disability (“LTD”) claims without any legitimate basis because their decisions are usually subject to deferential review. Even if the basis for the denial or termination is wrong, a reviewing court will not overturn the decision unless it is patently arbitrary. Therefore, rather than paying disability benefits, insurance wrongfully deny and terminate claims because they hope a court will uphold the decision even if it is wrong.

One way to combat an insurer’s improper claims decision is by filing a complaint with the State insurance regulatory agency. Such a complaint must be filed prior to litigation, while the claim is still subject to administrative review by the insurer. I have a client from Ohio whose claim was approved by Aetna yesterday, not coincidentally after a complaint was filed with the Ohio Insurance Department.

The claimant filed her LTD application by providing all of the information required by Aetna’s application forms, including medical reports from her three treating doctors. Nonetheless, Aetna denied her application. I filed a complaint with the Insurance Department because, among other things, Aetna refused to provide a copy of the claimant’s file other than her medical records. Even though the claimant’s appeal relied on the same medical records from the same treating doctors, the application was approved after the Insurance Department complaint was filed.

If a case proceeds to federal court, in most cases the only risk for the insurer is the possibility of paying the claimant’s attorneys fees. Filing a complaint with the insurance department can result in other types of penalties and the filing itself is a blot on the insurer’s record. Furthermore, filing the insurance department complaint sends a signal to the insurer that the claimant is serious about obtaining disability benefits and most likely will litigate if necessary.

As noted above, insurers frequently risk going to court rather than paying disability benefits because they hope a court will uphold the decision even if it is wrong. Nonetheless, insurers often try to increase their chances succeeding in court by avoiding terminating or denying a claim with well developed evidentiary support. Claims that are prepared in anticipation of litigation, which includes filing insurance department complaints, vigorously rebutting all of the insurer’s arguments, and submitting both medical and vocational evidence in support of the claim, will increase the chances of securing benefits prior to having to proceed to court.

Wednesday, October 17th, 2007

Vertigo

Yesterday, Janet Jackson resumed her concert tour after canceling two weeks of shows due to vertigo. Besides being the name of a famous Alfred Hitchcock movie, vertigo is the sensation that you are dizzily turning around or things are dizzily turning about you. Vertigo is usually associated with an inner ear or vestibular disorder. When severe, vertigo can be disabling.
I represent a former psychiatric nurse with vertigo whose Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits were approved in less than five months. The key was showing that the claimant met the criteria of what is referred to as a “listed impairment”. A listed impairment is a medical condition that is so serious that a person is deemed disabled if the criteria are met. Vertigo can fall under listing 2.07, entitled Disturbance of labyrinthine-vestibular function.

I was able to demonstrate that the claimant’s vertigo satisfied the criteria of listing 2.07. I supplied clinical records reflecting a history of balance disturbance, lightheadedness, hearing loss, nausea and tinnitis. I also submitted rotational chair balance and platform posturography reports, which are test diagnostic teststhat confirm the vestibular labyrinth dysfunction, together with audiometric evaluation reports that established the degree of hearing loss.

Because the claimant had both clinical and diagnostic evidence to support her condition, she was able to show that she met the listing, which enabled her to receive her SSD benefits relatively quickly. Otherwise, she probably would have needed to wait until a hearing, and that would have delayed her receipt of benefits for over a year at a minimum.

Wednesday, October 17th, 2007

No Objective Testing Required for Chronic Fatigue

I took over a Social Security Disability (“SSD”) case from another attorney when the claimant had to go to federal court. The claimant was diagnosed with vestibular disorder and then Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (“CFS”). I succeeded in having the court order another hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).

The case had been denied for lack of objective evidence. Regarding the vestibular disorder, I pointed out that while the ALJ had cited a normal diagnostic test, he had overlooked five other abnormal tests that substantiated the disorder. Nonetheless, the focus became CFS because the claimant’s infectious disease specialist and family doctor believed the vestibular disorder was symptomatic of the overall CFS.

The treating doctors summarized their clinical findings and conclusions. Their reports also provided detailed functional capacity assessments that precluded sedentary work. However, neither physician cited any diagnostic test data to support their opinions. To the contrary, each stated that there is no diagnostic testing associated with CFS, and that diagnoses, treatment and their disability o pinions were based on their clinical treatment history.

Disability claims are routinely denied or terminated for lack of “objective” evidence. In submitting a case, it is important to note whether there is any diagnostic testing that could possibly be submitted. It is equally important to highlight that physical examination findings are objective medical according to any medical dictionary or treatis

Tuesday, October 9th, 2007

Non-binding Disability Decision

Many claimants submit applications for more than one type of disability benefit. A reviewing agency or insurance company will always point out that being approved by another agency or insurer for disability benefits is not binding upon it. Nonetheless, a favorable decision should always be supplied because it is still persuasive evidence that must be considered.

Courts repeatedly state that although a Social Security Disability (“SSD”) decision is not binding upon an insurance company in the group long term disability context, it is arbitrary for an insurer to refuse to explain why the favorable SSD decision was wrong. I received a favorable SSD decision that also illustrates an approval should always be brought to the attention of another disability decision maker.

I represent a client whose SSD claim was pending for a year at the initial level. The Social Security Administration (the “SSA) kept raising excuses for refusing to decide the matter. In the interim, I obtained an approval for the claimant’s New York State Disability Retirement Pension. Shortly after I submitted the NYS decision to the SSA, the claimant’s SSD application was approved without explanation, despite threats to deny the SSD claim because the claimant refused to attend a consultative examination. Those threats make it unlikely that it was simply a coincidence that the SSD claim was approved right after the NYS decision was submit

Page 1 of 3123»

 

Loading
  • 2021 (11)
  • April (3)
    • SSD Inside Attack
    • Applying for SSD
    • Help for SSD?
  • March (3)
    • Credibility Approval
    • MS Victory
    • Cigna Reverses LTD Denial
  • February (3)
    • State Agency Medical Consultants
    • ALJ Berkowitz Reversed Second Time
    • Some Good News
  • January (2)
    • ALJ Smith Reversed Again
    • Survivor Benefits
  • 2020 (47)
  • December (3)
    • Compassionate Allowance
    • Unum LTD Approval
    • Federal Court Remand
  • November (2)
    • Form Over Substance
    • Superior Service at Melville
  • October (2)
    • Common Sense
    • Patchogue Ineptness Continues
  • September (4)
    • Common Sense
    • Attorney Needed
    • The Right Decision
    • Coincidence or Trend?
  • August (3)
    • Federal Court Win
    • Waiting for SSD
    • State Agency Employee Fraud
  • July (1)
    • Judging Disabilities
  • June (7)
    • Updating Records
    • OTRs
    • Developing The Record
    • WC IME
    • What Was DDS Thinking
    • Updating Records
    • NYS OTDA
  • May (3)
    • Disability Insurance Approvals
    • SSD Backlog
    • COVID-19 Disability
  • April (6)
    • SSD Hearings
    • Some Good News!
    • Medical Consultant C. Levit
    • COVID19 Impacts SSD
    • Prudential Approval
    • CDC's Response to COVID19
  • March (8)
    • Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes
    • COVID19 Bill
    • Kudos to CALJ Wexler
    • COVID19 Repercussions
    • Coronavirus
    • Getting It Right
    • DaTscan
    • Adult Disabled Child
  • February (5)
    • SSD Approved in 1 Week
    • State Agency Doctors
    • SS Benefits in Danger
    • Proposed Changes to SS and Medicare
    • 6 Years for Approval
  • January (3)
    • Harmful Changes to SSD
    • Age & Disability
    • Prudential Disability Rating
  • 2019 (44)
  • December (2)
    • New Opinion Weighing
    • Listing
  • November (2)
    • Peripheral Arterial Disease
    • LTD Doctor Scam
  • October (1)
    • COLA
  • September (7)
    • Exhaustive Hospital Records
    • Expert Interrogatories
    • Surveillance Report
    • SSD Approved in 2 Months
    • Unum Pays
    • Bipolar Disorder
    • “Reserved” to the Commissioner
  • August (6)
    • SSD Approved in 4 Months
    • Videotaping IMA
    • Frontal Lobe Syndrome
    • Fahr's Syndrome
    • Initial SSD Approved
    • Inconsistent, But Favorable Decision
  • July (2)
    • How Slow Is It?
    • Medical Persuasiveness
  • June (2)
    • Meeting a Social Security Listing
    • Help for SS?
  • May (4)
    • NYS OTDA & IMA
    • ALJ “Gets It”
    • SSD Approved in 4 Months
    • Louis Fuchs
  • April (1)
    • Social Media and Disability
  • March (2)
    • LA Times on Trump and Social Security Disability
    • SSA and Facebook
  • February (5)
    • SSD and Working
    • U.S.D.J. Azrack Reverses ALJ
    • Objective Testing
    • U.S.D.J. Amon Reverses ALJ Iwuamadi
    • Proposed SS Rule Hurts
  • January (10)
    • Borderline Age
    • The Wait Is Killing Them
    • IMA
    • Erythromelalgia
    • Limbic Encephalitis
    • Government Shutdown & SS
    • Consussions
    • Migraines
    • Physician Assistants
    • SSA Stay Denied
  • 2018 (55)
  • December (3)
    • SSD After Returning To Work
    • Unum Avoids Trial
    • State Agency Fraud
  • November (3)
    • Ulcerative Colitis
    • How Absenteeism Affects Disability
    • Do You Need A Lawyer To Get SSD?
  • October (6)
    • Advanced Practice Registered Nurses
    • Bipolar Disorder
    • SS Benefits Increase
    • Dysautonomia
    • Young Person Granted OTR
    • Earnings After Onset
  • September (2)
    • Unum Motion To Remand Denied
    • SSA Misinformation
  • August (4)
    • SS Retirement Benefits
    • Pain Management Support
    • Social Security Scam
    • More Trouble for SSD
  • July (5)
    • Recording A CE
    • COPD
    • CE Boondoggle Continues
    • Continuing Disability Review
    • Help for Social Security?
  • June (2)
    • SSD While You Work
    • DDS Summarily Reversed
  • May (1)
    • The Future of Social Security
  • April (7)
    • Patchogue Obstruction
    • Washington Times Article
    • Medical Sources
    • Lourdes Marasigan
    • Lump Sum Settlements
    • Partially Favorable Decisions
    • No Help for SSD Backlogs
  • March (7)
    • Fast SSD Approval
    • Vocational Experts
    • Disability and Medicare
    • IMA Disability Services
    • NYSLERS & SSD
    • Help for SSD Benefits?
    • Vocational Expert
  • February (7)
    • Supporting Records
    • Budget Cuts Increase Wait Times
    • Support Letters
    • SSD For MS
    • Misconceptions About SSD Continue
    • Patchogue Fails Again
    • Myasthenia Gravis
  • January (8)
    • Lupus
    • SSD Delays
    • WC Medical Opinions
    • Government Targets the Disabled
    • Another SSD Myth Busted
    • The Truth About SSD
    • SS Benefits 101
    • Increase in SS Denials
  • 2017 (50)
  • December (11)
    • Best Time to Apply for SS
    • Parkinson's Disease
    • SSA in Crisis
    • SSD Reform Needed
    • Applying for SSD Benefits
    • Headaches
    • Disabling Fibromyalgia
    • Garnishing SS Benefits
    • Nurse Practioners
    • Trump Hurt Disabled Workers
    • Expediting Hearing
  • November (5)
    • Social Security Fraud
    • Congress Can End SSD Backlog
    • Tips for Retirement Benefits
    • Social Security Backlog Continues
    • Income and Disability
  • October (1)
    • Witness Testimony
  • September (3)
    • Free Medical Records for New Yorkers
    • Mental Health Parity Laws
    • OTRs to Reduce Backlog
  • August (3)
    • SSD Hearing Delays
    • Unum Loses
    • SSA Medical Experts
  • July (4)
    • Fast SSD Approvals
    • Video Representation
    • Treating Doctor CE
    • Investigating DDS Doctors
  • June (4)
    • Auxiliary Benefits
    • Work History
    • Prehearing Brief
    • Rule Change
  • May (5)
    • ALJ Kilgannon Reversed
    • Hereditary Angioedema
    • IMA CE
    • RSD Journal
    • Psychotherapy Treatment Records
  • April (3)
    • Unum Rubberstamping Puppets
    • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Update
    • Consultative Examinations
  • March (3)
    • Discretionary Clauses
    • Pancreatitis
    • Pain Medicine
  • February (5)
    • ALJ Found Scleroderma Disabling
    • More SSD Delays
    • ODAR Rumor
    • SSD Approval Rates
    • National Adjudication Team
  • January (3)
    • Treating Testimony
    • Pontine Stroke
    • SSD Bench Decisions
  • 2016 (44)
  • December (2)
    • What is an Administrative Record?
    • Pain Medicine
  • November (3)
    • SSD Approved in 2 Months
    • Hiring A Vocational Expert
    • VA Rating & SSD
  • October (1)
    • NYSLERS Approval
  • September (6)
    • Second Circuit Case
    • Prudential LTD Fraud
    • District Court Rejects SSA Denial
    • Work Record
    • Macroprolactinoma
    • Jerome Caiati
  • August (5)
    • Importance of Diagnostic Testing
    • SSD Approved In 2 Months
    • Unemployment Benefits Do Not Preclude SSD
    • ALJ Relies On Disgraced “Medical Expert”
    • SSD Approved for Crohn’s Disease
  • July (4)
    • NYSLERS
    • Claimant Credibility and Work History
    • NYS OTDA Fraud Update
    • SSD Approved in Less Than Months
  • June (2)
    • Padro Benefits
    • Social Worker’s Opinion
  • May (7)
    • Combined Disabling Conditions
    • Lymphedema
    • Significant Weight Suffices
    • Combined Disabling Conditions
    • Cancer Claims
    • Deceptive Insurance Practices
    • Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome
  • April (3)
    • Kudos To ALJ Wexler
    • Vocational Report Pays Off
    • Holding IMA Accountable
  • March (5)
    • Vocational Expert
    • Easy Case For ALJ
    • SSD Approved in 2.5 Months
    • ALJ Quotas
    • NYSLERS
  • February (3)
    • ALJ Quotas
    • Appealing Partially Favorable SSD Decisions
    • Subpoenas
  • January (3)
    • SSA Self Policing
    • IMA Folly
    • State Agency Fraud
  • 2015 (50)
  • December (1)
    • Sun Life Reverses Denial
  • November (6)
    • DDS Continues to Purge Evidence
    • Proposed LTD Regulations
    • Reliance Approves LTD After Deadline
    • Approval for Toll Collector
    • The Consequences of SSD Delays
    • Acupuncture
  • October (3)
    • Bilateral Manual Dexterity
    • SSD Waiting Times
    • Good News?
  • September (7)
    • SSA Continues Prejudicial Policy
    • Psychotherapy Notes
    • Vocational Evidence Determinative
    • Treating Doctor Testimony
    • IMA Notices
    • SSA Delays
    • SSA INTENTIONALLY INCREASING DELAYS
  • July (3)
    • NYS OTDA Fraud
    • Proper Proffer Procedures
    • Report IMA & DDS Fraud To Inspector General
  • June (2)
    • Undisclosed ALJ Rule
    • SSA Uses Gynecologist To Deny Man’s SSD Claim
  • May (1)
    • Prudential Settles LTD Claim
  • April (2)
    • AMENDING SSD ONSET DATE
    • Padro Benefits
  • March (5)
    • New IMA Fraud & Worse
    • Mental Health Records
    • CROM Testing
    • Padro: Relief too little, too late
    • IMA Evading Law Again
  • February (8)
    • SSD for School Custodian
    • 28 Months For Approval
    • SSD With No Hearing
    • State Agency Analyst Lied
    • Social Security Backlog
    • Social Security Backlog
    • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Renamed
    • Go Figure
  • January (12)
    • IMA Disability Services
    • Sadistic IMA Conduct
    • A Padro Success
    • Disability for Breast Cancer
    • Continuing Disability Review
    • CIGNA Reverses LTD Termination
    • Disability Hearing Witnesses
    • The State Agency Concedes
    • Social Security Fraud
    • Congress Killing Disability
    • Binder & Binder Bankruptcy
    • SSD In Less Than A Month
  • 2014 (60)
  • December (8)
    • Hearing Wait Gets Worse
    • Internists’ Disability Opinions
    • Binder & Binder Goes Bankrupt
    • SSA Form 821
    • Dementia
    • Sensorineural Deafness
    • CIGNA Says Claimant Cannot Do Any Work
    • Biased SSA Review Policy
  • November (3)
    • Videotaping IMEs
    • Unum Agrees Claimant Can’t Do Any Work
    • Remand Reversal
  • October (5)
    • Pseudarthrosis
    • Proper Hearing Notice
    • Video Taping Consultative Examination
    • Antiphospholipid Syndrome
    • Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
  • September (5)
    • SSA Still Not Using eCAT Properly
    • Supplemental Hearing Cancelled
    • Establishing Mental Disability
    • Passive Income
    • Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis
  • August (2)
    • IMA Disability Services
    • Federal Court Reverses CIGNA
  • July (3)
    • SSD for RSD
    • State Agency Waste and Delay
    • Lyme Disease
  • June (1)
    • SSD Benefits for Hearing Loss
  • May (6)
    • SSD For Landscaper
    • Disability Retirement Approved Without A Hearing
    • SSD for Cement Truck Driver
    • USDC Reverses ALJ Wolfe
    • Disability Etiology
    • Unum Field Visit
  • April (5)
    • Disability Benefits for Truck Driver
    • Autoimmune Hepatitis
    • Establishing Mental Disability
    • Unum Reapproval
    • Medicaid Disability Determinations
  • March (7)
    • Patchogue Problems Persist
    • Benefits Turned On Vocational Error
    • SSA Staff Attorneys
    • Disability Benefits While Working
    • Scleroderma
    • Agoraphobia
    • Padro Deadline
  • February (4)
    • State Agency Reports Misrepresentations
    • Amending Onset To Avoid Hearing
    • Carpenter Avoids Disability Hearing
    • Brugada Syndrome
  • January (11)
    • Disabling Mitral Valve
    • SSA Secret Rule
    • The Electronic Claims Analysis Tool (eCAT)
    • If You Die Before Benefits Are Approved
    • Media Deception
    • CIGNA Reverses STD & LTD Decisions
    • Disabling Sleep Apnea
    • Padro Settlement Agreement A Joke
    • Appealing Partially Favorable Decisions
    • Social Security in the News
    • Hoppenfeld Refused To Comply With Padro
  • 2013 (84)
  • December (4)
    • CIGNA Loses Standard of Review Motion
    • Prudential Cancels IME
    • Cirrhosis
    • Disability And Work History
  • November (3)
    • Common Sense
    • Pre-onset Medical Evidence
    • Aetna Reverses LTD Termination
  • October (8)
    • Social Security Benefit Increase
    • Reopening Prior Application
    • Wegener's Granulomatosis
    • SSA “Quality” Review By QRB
    • Dire Need
    • Padro Settlement Approved
    • Social Security Increase
    • Government Shutdown
  • September (3)
    • More DDS Waste
    • Fraud In The Social Security Disability process
    • Medical Expert Interrogatories
  • August (12)
    • Reviewing An Employer’s Work Description
    • Podiatrists
    • Off Task
    • Social Security Reconsideration
    • Fully Favorable Decisions
    • Operative Reports
    • Unusual SSD Approvals
    • Risky Side Effects
    • ALJ Strauss Claimants
    • Unsuccessful Work Attempt
    • Unum Pressures Doctors
    • Patchogue Continued Ineptitude
  • July (11)
    • Is Strauss Serious?
    • Is It The New Commissioner?
    • Padro Class Action Problem
    • Padro Class Action Hearing Next Week
    • Replace UNUM
    • Expediting SSD Hearings
    • Court Said IME Doctor Lied
    • Continuing Disability Review
    • Podiatrists
    • Connect The Dots
    • Unum Ordered To Produce Witnesses For Depositions
  • June (5)
    • Social Security Form DDD-3883
    • Acceptable Medical Sources
    • Petition Regulators About Unum
    • Consultative Exam Withdrawn
    • Padro Class Action Notices
  • May (6)
    • Rejecting SSA Remand Offer
    • CIGNA Regulatory Settlement
    • Polymyositis
    • NOSSCR Conference
    • SSA Misinformation
    • Padro Class Action Settlement
  • April (10)
    • DDS Actually Listened
    • Padro Class Action Update
    • Same Day SSD & DI Award
    • SSD for Letter Carrier
    • Illusory Unum Approval
    • Work History & Credibility
    • Lupus
    • Thank You Judge Irizarry
    • Crohn’s’ Disease
    • Work History
  • March (6)
    • Eliminate the SSD Waiting Period
    • Urinary Incontinence
    • SS Retirement or Disability?
    • Ignoring Unreasonable Requests
    • Officer Approved in 2 Months
    • PADRO Class Action
  • February (8)
    • Updating Evidence
    • SSD & Chiropractors
    • SSD Approved In Under 2 Months
    • Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
    • Queens ALJ Bias Plaintiff
    • Breast Cancer
    • CIGNA LTD Fraud Template
    • Unsuccessful Work Attempt
  • January (8)
    • Why DDS Denies SSD Claimants
    • Partially Favorable Onset Appeal
    • Treating Physician Rule
    • FCE Spurs Unum Approval
    • Commendable Action By ALJ
    • ERISA Exception
    • Importance of Vocational Evidence
    • State Agency Exam Notices
  • 2012 (87)
  • December (4)
    • SSD Approved In 3 Months
    • Social Security Myth
    • Subpoena Leads to SSD Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Another CE Problem
  • November (4)
    • CIGNA Bad Faith Affirmed
    • Walking Time Bomb
    • Three Heads Are Better Than One
    • Power Restored
  • October (7)
    • Appeals Council Remands
    • Social Security & The Presidential Election
    • SSD Claimants Need To Review Their Efolders
    • Firefighter Awarded SSD
    • Obesity & Disability
    • Videotaping IMA Consultative Examinations
    • Biased Hoppenfeld Decision Reversed
  • September (4)
    • Ileocolic Resection
    • ALJ Bias Overcome
    • Updating Medical Evidence
    • Should I Take Early Retirement?
  • August (9)
    • IMA Disability Services
    • Carpenter Wins SSD For Wrong Reason
    • Padro ALJ Bias Class Action To Be Settled
    • Binder & Binder Replaced
    • If at first …
    • IMA Disability Services
    • The Office of Medical and Vocational Expertise
    • Newsday Article
    • The SSD “12 Month Rule”
  • July (6)
    • Medical Expert Interrogatories
    • Patchogue Ineptitude
    • Emphasizing Work History
    • Reopening Disability Applications
    • What is NY Waiting For?
    • When Objective Evidence Isn't Enough
  • June (10)
    • Disability Benefits For Nurse
    • Bench Decision
    • Hearing Avoided
    • Disability Pension Award From Union
    • IMA Exams In New York
    • AARP On SSD
    • How Much Will Social Security Pay You?
    • SSD & Unemployment Benefits
    • State Agency-IMA Bad Faith Tactics
    • Why Bother With An Exam By IMA?
  • May (14)
    • Workers Compensation & SSD
    • Hoppenfeld Bias
    • Veteran Gets SSD for Memorial Day
    • Vocational Evidence
    • Establishing Mental Disability
    • IMA Exam Is Not Required
    • Postherpetic Neuralgia
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Disabling AION
    • Proof of Birth for SSD
    • Corroboration is not Superfluous
    • Social Security Listings
    • CIGNA CONTINUES ILLEGAL CONDUCT
    • Fast SSD Approvals
  • April (9)
    • Impaired Use of Hands
    • Representative Payee
    • Onset Appeal
    • Amending SSD Onset Date
    • State Agency Vocational Experts
    • Causation and Social Security Disability Benefits
    • Alport Syndrome
    • David Nisnewitz Found Unfit To Be ALJ Again
    • Reopening SSD Applications
  • March (6)
    • Another Example of ALJ Fier's Bias
    • Physician Specialty
    • Medical Source Statements
    • Podiatrists and Disability Benefits
    • Retaining Social Security Experts
    • Transparent Hoppenfeld Bias
  • February (7)
    • State Agency Disability Analysts
    • SSD & WC
    • SSA Should Reimburse Travel
    • Disability Benefits For Carpenter
    • Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
    • SSD Approved in Two Months
    • Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
  • January (7)
    • Veterans Medical Source Statements
    • Disabled by Schizophrenia
    • Receiving SSD Benefits and an Income
    • Vocational Credibility
    • SSD For Police Officer
    • Kienbock's Disease
    • Patchogue Incompetence
  • 2011 (89)
  • December (4)
    • Binder and Binder
    • Appeals Council Doltishness
    • NYCERS Disability Pension
    • Can You Receive SSD If You Have Income?
  • November (6)
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Multiple Impairments
    • Adverse Evidence
    • Cerebrovascular Accident & SSD
    • Was A Video Hearing Needed?
    • NOSSCR Conference
  • October (7)
    • SSD Approved in 2 Weeks
    • SSD Approved In 2 Months
    • Disability and Diabetes
    • Social Security Benefit Increase
    • Vocational Experts
    • IMA Consultative Examinations
    • Hoppenfeld & The Rotation Policy
  • September (9)
    • Alzheimer’s
    • Federal Court Reassigns Nisnewitz Case
    • Approval After Federal Court Remand
    • Abusive Hoppenfeld Conduct
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • SSD Overpayments
    • LTD Approved In Less Than A Month
    • Maximizing Disability Benefits
    • Mixed Connective Tissue Disease
  • August (7)
    • When To Amend The Disability Onset Date
    • Right To Cross Examine Post Hearing Experts
    • Commissioner’s Statement Is Offensive
    • Gilding the Lily
    • SSD Approved in 2.5 Months
    • When to File for SSD
    • Disability & Incontinence
  • July (11)
    • Hoppenfeld Fibromyalgia Bias
    • On The Record Requests
    • LTD Approved In Two Months
    • Work History
    • Relocating While Disabled
    • Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
    • Getting Disability Benefits Quickly
    • SSD Approved in 3 Months
    • SSD Approved In Two Months
    • SSD & WC Offset
    • Disability Analysts
  • June (7)
    • Federal Court Decision
    • Social Security Depravity
    • Depression and Anxiety
    • Fully Favorable Appeals Council Order
    • Erythema Multiform Major
    • SSD in Three Months
    • Lincoln Life Pays LTD Benefits
  • May (8)
    • Acquiring Work Skills
    • Court Rejects CIGNA LTD Termination
    • Disability Benefits & Substance Abuse
    • Endometriosis
    • SSD Approved In 2 Months
    • Raising The Retirement Age
    • No More Paper Checks
    • Treating Doctors
  • April (11)
    • SSA Prehearing
    • Disability Redefined
    • Consultative Examinations
    • Evidence of Hoppenfeld Bias
    • ALJ Nisnewitz Rejected Again
    • ALJ Bias Class Action
    • Working And SSD
    • ALJ Bias In Queens
    • Federal Court Decision
    • ALJ Strauss Rejected Again
    • Seven Year Wait Over
  • March (8)
    • Lyme Disease
    • ALJ Strauss Reversed Again
    • Remand To A New ALJ
    • “Secret” Child’s Benefits
    • Unfair CIGNA Tactics Detailed
    • LTD Policy Offsets
    • Partially Favorable Decisions
    • SSD While Working
  • February (9)
    • Expediting Disability Benefits
    • Multiple sclerosis
    • Date Last Insured
    • Radiculopathy
    • Videoconference Hearings
    • Expediting Disability Benefits
    • Patchogue Incompetence
    • Federal Court Decision
    • Union Disability Approved
  • January (2)
    • Does ALJ Strauss Try To Get Reversed?
    • ALJ Fier Unfit To Rehear Case
  • 2010 (75)
  • December (7)
    • SSA Notice of Awards
    • SSA Doctors
    • Protective Filing Date
    • SSA Delays
    • On The Record Requests
    • Dialysis & Disability
    • Disability Opinions & Medical Tests
  • November (7)
    • LTD and SSD
    • CIGNA Sued For Surveillance
    • Attorney Advisors
    • Social Security Doctors
    • Unum Reverses Termination
    • Electronic Records Express
    • Multiple Impairments
  • October (4)
    • Liver Cancer
    • Unum Approves Fibromyalgia Claim
    • Comorbid Conditions
    • “Partially Favorable” Decisions
  • September (6)
    • Income Doesn't Bar Disability Benefits
    • Celiac Disease
    • Proving Disabling Pain
    • EAJA Fees
    • IMA Disability Services
    • Self Employment
  • August (5)
    • Headaches
    • Ankle Injuries
    • Partially Favorable Decisions
    • Bench Decisions
    • Fibromyalgia
  • July (6)
    • Medical Listing Opinions
    • Treatment Records
    • Avoiding SSD Hearings
    • Federal Court Remand
    • The MTA & SSD
    • When Work Doesn’t Count
  • June (7)
    • Gastroparesis
    • Sjogren's Syndrome
    • Benefits After A Federal Court Remand
    • Firefighter Gets SSD Benefits
    • Prudential Approved LTD, For Now
    • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
    • Getting Benefits While Working
  • May (7)
    • EAJA Fees
    • Stroke
    • New Jersey District Court Remand
    • District Court Remand
    • ALJ Hoppenfeld Overtly Acts Biased
    • Veterans
    • NYCERS & SSD
  • April (8)
    • Medical Evidence and Functionality
    • Deceptive SSA Notices
    • Onset Date
    • Queens ALJs
    • When Can You File For SSD Benefits?
    • Parkinson’s Disease
    • Consultative Exam (“CE”) Ruled Improper
    • EAJA Fees
  • March (5)
    • Consultative Examinations
    • New Office
    • Complaining About Biased ALJs
    • IMA Disability Services
    • Multiple Impairments
  • February (6)
    • NYCERS
    • Primary Care Physicians
    • Social Security Rulings
    • Anxiety
    • Fibromyalgia
    • Retrospective Medical Opinion
  • January (7)
    • Disability For Federal Employees
    • The Grids
    • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
    • Adult Disabled Children
    • Charcot-Marie-Tooth
    • Depression and Anxiety
    • RSD/CRPS
  • 2009 (60)
  • December (5)
    • Getting SSD Even If You Can Work
    • Health Insurance For Children
    • Health Insurance For Children
    • Settling With CIGNA
    • Avoiding An Improper Consultative Exam
  • November (5)
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Protective Filing Dates
    • SSD Delays
    • Reopening Past SSD Denial
    • ALJ Strauss’ Reliance On ME Cohen’s Testimony Proves She Is Biased
  • October (7)
    • Listed Impairments
    • Multiple Medical Sources
    • Attorney Advisors
    • Avoiding Consultative Examinations
    • Atypical Parkinson’s
    • Chondromalacia
    • Subpoena The SSA Doctor
  • September (3)
    • Prudential Reverses Fibromyalgia STD & LTD Denial
    • ALJ Nisenewitz: Stupid or Biased?
    • LTD & Health Insurance
  • August (3)
    • Teacher Finally Receives SSD Benefits
    • SSA Consultative Examiners
    • Child’s Benefits
  • July (4)
    • Retrospective Medical Opinions
    • Senior Attorney Adjudicators
    • Medical Improvement
    • Fibromyalgia
  • June (4)
    • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)
    • Dictionary of Occupational Titles
    • Voluntary Remand
    • Subpoena Denials
  • May (5)
    • Courts Rules CIGNA Is Biased
    • SSD & Taxes
    • ALJ Hoppenfeld Must Be Barred From FMS Cases
    • Don’t Believe Everything You Read
    • On The Record Request
  • April (4)
    • Avoiding SSD Remand Hearing
    • NYCERS Disability Retirement
    • Submitting Medical Records
    • CIGNA Ordered To Pay For Its Actions
  • March (9)
    • Oops, CIGNA’s Done It Again
    • Hearing Office Attorneys
    • Hearing Notice
    • Appeals Council Rebukes ALJ Fier
    • Unsuccessful Work Attempts
    • Medical Assessments
    • Disability & Downsizing
    • Consultative Examinations
    • Obama Disability Benefit
  • February (4)
    • SSI Decisions
    • Responsive Doctors
    • Vocational Experts
    • Multiple Sclerosis
  • January (7)
    • Court Blasts CIGNA LTD Benefit Termination
    • Obama and Social Security Benefits
    • “Fully Favorable” Decisions
    • SSD Secret
    • Notice of Dismissal
    • Initial SSA Decisions
    • Appeals Council Scolds ALJ
  • 2008 (70)
  • December (5)
    • Unum Cases In New York
    • Medical Evidence
    • Prior Applications
    • Disability is Functionality
    • Medical Records & Reports
  • November (5)
    • Depression & OCD
    • Overpayment
    • Medical Specialists
    • Best Medical Evidence
    • Appeals Council Remand
  • October (6)
    • Social Security Files
    • Applicaiton Filing Date
    • Representing Yourself
    • Disabled Voters
    • Vertigo
    • Multiple Impairments
  • September (4)
    • Medicare
    • ALJ Hoppenfeld
    • Fibromyalgia
    • Appeals Council Remand
  • August (8)
    • Myasthenia Gravis
    • More Is Better
    • Disability Benefits & Work
    • SSA Medical Reports
    • Negotiating Disability Benefits
    • Consultative Examinations
    • GMA Exposes CIGNA
    • Work History
  • July (6)
    • Onset and Application Dates
    • Supreme Court Helps LTD Claimants
    • Expediting SSD Cases
    • Two Heads Are Better Than One
    • LTD Litigation
    • Retrospective Medical Opinions
  • June (7)
    • Establishing An Onset Date
    • Field Visit
    • Multiple Attorneys
    • Self Employment
    • Special Accommodations
    • Multiple Disability Benefits
    • Clarifying Objective Evidence
  • May (3)
    • Unum Games
    • Vocational Evidence
    • Credit Disability Insurance
  • April (7)
    • “Fully Favorable” Decisions
    • Treating Sources
    • SSD & Mental Disability
    • Using Vocational Evidence To Expedite Benefits
    • Attorney Adjudicator
    • Past Earnings
    • Benefits Without A Hearing
  • March (3)
    • Objective Evidence
    • Disability Appeals
    • Police Officer
  • February (9)
    • Irrelevant Medical Conditions
    • Establishing Credibility
    • Medical Updates
    • No Health Insurance
    • Application Dates
    • Possible Delay Remedy
    • Unum Reassessment Loophole
    • Benefits Despite Income
    • Consultative Examinations
  • January (7)
    • “Accentuate The Positive, Eliminate The Negative”
    • Dire Need
    • How To Avoid Hearing Delays
    • Police Disability
    • Seminar
    • Expediting LTD Benefits
    • Uveitis
  • 2007 (58)
  • December (7)
    • TBI and Vocational Evidence
    • Failure To Receive Notice
    • Mental Disorders
    • Inability To Speak English
    • Discovery In ERISA Cases
    • Don’t Be Intimidated By DDS
    • Multiple Sclerosis
  • November (7)
    • Avoiding Hearings
    • Working Does Not Preclude Benefits
    • Be Wary of Forms
    • Exam Secrets
    • SSD for Firefighter
    • Consultative Examinations
    • Purpose of SSD Hearing
  • October (6)
    • Why Wait?
    • Insurance Department Complaint
    • Overreach For Disability Retirement
    • Vertigo
    • No Objective Testing Required for Chronic Fatigue
    • Non-binding Disability Decision
  • September (3)
    • Always Review Your File
    • Vocational Evidence & Credibility
    • The More The Merrier
  • August (5)
    • Always Check The Listings
    • LTD & SSD
    • Avoid Early Retirement
    • Getting Benefits Faster
    • Medical Records & Reports
  • July (3)
    • Discovery in LTD Cases
    • Constant Vigilance
    • Judges Are Fallible
  • June (4)
    • Clerical Mistakes
    • Needless Forms
    • Objective Evidence of Pain
    • The SSA & The Self Employed Claimant
  • May (2)
    • POMS For Mental Impairment Claims
    • Don’t Be Misled By A Biased Judge
  • April (4)
    • LTD Plan Limitations
    • Faster Benefit Approval
    • LTD Approval Letters
    • Surprise Disability Benefits
  • March (7)
    • Corroborating Physicians
    • Unemployment Benefits
    • Miano v. Barnhart
    • Benefits Despite Working
    • Work History Credibility
    • Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
    • Arthritis Foundation
  • February (10)
    • CHANGE TO ANY OCCUPATION
    • The Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott Disability Law Archive
    • Biased ALJ
    • Memory Problems & File Surprise
    • Welcome to The Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott.
    • FAST SSD Hearing
    • Botta v. Barnhart
    • FERS Reconsideration
    • Benefits While Working
    • Traumatic Brain Injury Program

    DISCLAIMER
    This website provides general information on disability law topics as a public service. Information is intended to be as accurate and current as possible, but should not be relied on as legal advice. No attorney/client relationship is created by viewing or using the content on this website. Each legal problem is different, and past performance does not guarantee future results. You should not act on any of the information contained in this site without first consulting legal counsel, which is why readers are advised to seek experienced legal representation in connection with disability related issues. Our Internet links are not associated with us, and we do not guarantee the accuracy of, any information contained in any link. Past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.

    • HOME
    • ABOUT
    • RESOURCES
    • DISABILITY CLAIM FAQ
    • SERVICES
    • CIGNA
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • CONTACT
    • CLIENT RIGHTS

    Attorney Advertising
    Copyright © 2021, Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott

    Site Powered By: WebDesignYou