March 2024 - New York Disability Lawyer Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott

Friday, March 29th, 2024

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

Friday, March 29th, 2024

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 Even though we no longer represent them, we do try to help them through the process.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.

Friday, March 22nd, 2024

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.

Monday, March 18th, 2024

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.