www.iwantmydisability.com

Supporting Records

Over the last several years, I have discussed how the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) has pressured administrative law judges (“ALJ’s) into adjudicating more cases, and requiring that approvals be supported by more evidence. The result is that Social Security Disability (“SSD”) approval rates have been steadily declining. 

I represent a 39 year old former route sales driver with neck and back problems whose SSD application was approved today without a hearing. The claimant had been waiting a year for a hearing, and had submitted medical tests, records and reports from several physicians that supported the claimant’s application. 

A few days ago, I submitted about 100 pages of updated medical records from the surgeon who had been treating the claimant. The additional records were cumulative in that they did not provide new information about the claimant’s impairments, but corroborated the medical evidence that was already in the file. 

The ALJ’s office called today to advise that the case was being granted on-the-record. As the additional information was cumulative in nature, this is indicative of the type of case that would have been approved much sooner in the past, but now requires additional support to justify approval.

Budget Cuts Increase Wait Times

It seems as if everyday we have to explain to current and potential clients about how painfully slow the process is for receiving a decision on their Social Security Disability (“SSD”) application. The wait time for a decision has increased dramatically over the past eight years, especially over the last 3 years. Part of the reason is because of an increase in applications as “baby boomers” get older. Another part is because of the budget cuts imposed by the government. 

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) had been given the green light to hire more Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”), which would have reduced the wait times for a hearing. However, last January the current administration put a hiring freeze on government agencies, and also cut their budgets. Therefore, the SSA could not hire more ALJs, and the wait time for a hearing continues to grow. Imagine, not being able to work due to severe medical problems, which means no income, and then the government expects you to wait 2+ years for a hearing. While having an attorney can only decrease the wait time in some situations, it does greatly increase your chance of being approved.

Support Letters

The majority of the time, claimants are found entitled to receive disability benefits by virtue of the severity of their symptoms, not their diagnosis. When a claimant has a Social Security Disability (“SSD”) hearing, the Social Security rules and regulations require an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to determine if the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. That “other evidence” includes witnesses and support letters. 

It is always a good practice at an SSD hearing to have a witness testify, who will help corroborate the claimant’s complaints and limitations. Support letters should be submitted even if the claimant brings a witness to the hearing, and should absolutely be used when no witness will testify. 

I represent a 51 year old claimant with MS, whose SSD claim was approved today. The claimant was unable to bring a witness with her to the hearing, but I had procured several support letters that I submitted. The ALJ ruled that claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were reasonably consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. The ALJ singled out the statements of the claimant’s daughters among the support letters.

SSD For MS

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) has taken steps to make it harder to obtain Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits. One of the tactics the SSA has been using is continuously making the listings more complicated.

MS is a chronic, often disabling disease that attacks the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerves. Disabling symptoms include overwhelming fatigue, numbness, and poor coordination. Like many listings the SSA rewrote the one pertaining to MS. As a result, treating neurologists are usually no longer willing to provide an opinion that a patient meets the MS listing, which no doubt was the SSA’s goal.

I represent a 56 year old former teaching assistant with MS whose SSD benefits were approved today. The treating neurologist would not opine that the claimant met the MS listing because he said it was ridiculously convoluted, and replete with cross references on cross references. Nonetheless, the neurologist did provide treatment records with a report that detailed the claimant’s functional limitations.

The ALJ had no problem accepting the neurologist’s medical findings and opinions. However, the claimant had to wait years before her hearing was scheduled. If the SSA had not intentionally increased the complexity of the MS listing, then the neurologist probably would have opined the claimant met its criteria, which could have avoided a hearing.

Misconceptions About SSD Continue

Patchogue Fails Again

We represent a client whose initial application for Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits falls under the jurisdiction of the Patchogue District Office. We filed the SSD application at the beginning of November. The claim has been a problem from the beginning. The applicant previously filed an application on his own. The Patchogue office erroneously denied that application because its representative made errors concerning the claimant’s prior earnings. Since filing his SSD claim last November, we have spoken with three different people at the Patchogue office, one of which was a supervisor. We also received a date-stamped letter from the Patchogue office as proof that they received our letters of representation.

On January 10, 2018, we spoke with the supervisor, Ms. Sheremeta. We explained that we had spoken with Mr. Parks on December 8, 2017, confirming with him that their office had received our letters of representation, which we had faxed to them in November. We made that call because they had previously told us that they were having problems with their fax, and we wanted to make sure we did not need to mail our letters of representation to them again.

Ms. Sheremeta spent 15 minutes on the phone with us to correct the problems. Ms. Sheremeta advised us to send the paperwork that was needed to Mr. Hessler, and she would have him re-open and process the claim. We faxed the requested paperwork to Mr. Hessler. We called Patchogue again on January 19, 2018, and spoke with Mr. Powers, who advised us that the case had not been re-processed yet, but that he did see the notes to re-open it.

Each person we spoke with: Mr. Parks, Ms. Sheremeta, and Mr. Powers, confirmed that they had our letters of representation in the claimant’s file. If they did not have our letters, then they would not have been able to discuss anything about the claim with us.

We called the Patchogue office yet again on February 1, 2018, to follow up on the claim. Ms. Abraham advised us that they did not have our letters of representation, and therefore, she could not give us any information. We explained to her that this was impossible, based on all our previous conversations and correspondence with the Patchogue office. Nonetheless, Ms. Abraham refused to speak with us, and refused to allow us to speak with Ms. Sheremeta. At that point, in total frustration at their ineptitude, we re-faxed our letters of representation along with a cover letter to Ms. Sheremta.

We called Patchogue the following day, and again spoke with Ms. Abraham. She confirmed that our fax was sitting on Ms. Sheremeta’s desk, but as Ms. Sheremeta was out and had not scanned the paperwork into the system, Ms. Abraham told us that she could not speak with us about the claimant’s case.

We called Patchogue yet again today, and spoke with Ms. Kanhai. She asked us for the claimant’s information including, their SSN, date of birth, and home address. She also asked us for the claimant’s mother’s maiden name. We explained to Ms. Kanhai that previously no one ever, including the supervisor, had asked us this question, but she still refused to give us any information regarding the claimant’s file.

The Patchogue District Office is notorious for their negligence, disorganization, and ineptness. As others have told us, they need to get their act together. We have filed a complaint with the office of public affairs. This is no way to run an office, especially one that is supposed to be serving the public and helping our hard working citizens to get disability.

Myasthenia Gravis

Myasthenia Gravis (“MG”) is a chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder that causes voluntary muscle weakness. There is a listing for MG. However, like many listings, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) rewrote the MG listing to make it more difficult to meet. 

I represent a 51 year old former owner of an auto repair business whose application for Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits was approved in only four months without providing a listing opinion from the treating neurologist. However, I provided the SSA with hundreds of pages of treatment records that noted visual and speech difficulties, weakness and fatigue. 

As MG is relatively rare, many SSA analysts are unfamiliar with it, which makes the approval in only four months somewhat unexpected. It appears that the claimant had his claim reviewed by someone who performed their job properly, rather than automatically denying something they did not understand.