Thursday, March 30th, 2023
  • 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
    • IMA CEs
    • McQuillin Oral Argument
  • DISABILITY CLAIM FAQ
  • SERVICES
    • Applying For Disability Benefits
    • Disability Appeals
    • Negotiation
    • Disability Claim Litigation
    • Post Approval Supervision
  • 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

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

Abusive Hoppenfeld Conduct

On April 22, 2011, I discussed the class action lawsuit that accuses Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”), including Marilyn P. Hoppenfeld, of bias against Social Security disability claimants. The New York Times article about the class action, and a copy of the class action complaint, can be found on my web page’s Resources tab. I had a hearing yesterday with Hoppenfeld that mirrors the allegations in that class action lawsuit.

From the outset, Hoppenfeld tried to intimidate the claimant. In one of the most disgusting displays that I have ever seen by an ALJ, despite the fact that Hoppenfeld knew the claimant had an IQ in the retarded range, she kept telling him that his mother should be arrested for not making him go to school. When she saw that her comment upset the claimant, ALJ Hoppenfeld continued to ask why his mother had not been arrested. Moreover, Hoppenfeld refused to sit at her seat, and stood over the claimant throughout much of the hearing. Furthermore, in addition to screaming at me and interrupting my cross examinations in front of the claimant, Hoppenfeld had a guard stand in back of him, and then had the guard sit facing the claimant.

One of the issues in the claimant’s case is Hoppenfeld’s misuse of experts. When the claimant was proceeding pro se, ALJ Hoppenfeld did not find any reason to call experts. However, after Hoppenfeld learned that an attorney was representing the claimant, she suddenly saw the need for THREE experts. I reviewed the claimant’ official SSA file on line both before I was retained, and after ALJ Hoppenfeld decided three hearing experts were needed. Not a single document was added during the interim. The only change was that ALJ Hoppenfeld now knew that the claimant was being represented by an attorney. That decision, in and of itself, evidences Hoppenfeld’s bias. But there is much more.

Misuse of experts happens to be one of the allegations in the class action lawsuit filed against ALJ Hoppenfeld for her anti-claimant bias. The class action alleges that her “consistent errors are highly probative of her anti-claimant bias,” and her pervasive misuse of experts is one of the examples of those consistent errors.

One way that ALJ Hoppenfeld abuses the hearing process is by failing to comply with Social Security’s rotation policy in HALLEX I-2-5-36(D), which provides:

Each RO maintains a roster of MEs who have agreed to provide impartial expert opinion pursuant to a BPA with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). (See I-2-5-31, Blanket Purchase Agreements.) An ALJ must select an ME who is maintained on any RO’s roster to the extent possible. The ALJ or designee must select an ME from the roster in rotation to the extent possible; i.e., when an ALJ selects an ME with a particular medical specialty from the roster to provide expert opinion in a case, that ME will go to the bottom of the roster and will not be called again by that ALJ or any other ALJ in the HO until all other MEs on the roster with that medical specialty are called. If an ME in the specialty needed by the ALJ is not available on the RO roster of the HO’s region, then the ALJ should look to other RO rosters to obtain the services of an ME.

As part of its investigation into ALJ Hoppenfeld’s anti-claimant bias, Social Security needs to review if she complies with the rotation policy. Both hearings I had with Hoppenfeld during the past 2 years included the same Medical expert (“ME”), a psychiatrist named Alfred Jonas. In the first case, Jonas testified that fibromyalgia is really misdiagnosed depression, and Hoppenfeld refused to allow me to cross examine ME Jonas regarding the basis for his belief that fibromyalgia does not really exist.

Yesterday was the next time I had a case with ALJ Hoppenfeld, and once again ALJ Hoppenfeld had ME Jonas testifying. It is either an incredible coincidence that ME Jonas was selected for each hearing, or it is further proof that ALJ Hoppenfeld intentionally skirts the rotation policy in order to use experts who she knows from prior practice would testify adversely to claimants. ME Jonas’ testimony at the claimant’s hearing certainly supports the latter.

The claimant had a Comprehensive Psychological Evaluation (“CPE”) performed by Dr. Gus C. Pappetrou, a VESID psychologist. VESID is a New York State agency that tries to help disabled people find or maintain work. The claimant is a 52 year old, with a fourth grade education. Because he was unable to continue his unskilled work as a roofing helper due primarily to back and knee pain, the claimant sought VESID’s help to find alternative employment. VESID sent the claimant to Dr. Papapetrou for the CPE, which was a battery of psychological tests, including IQ tests. ME Jonas apparently thought Dr. Pappetrou was the claimant’s psychologist, and testified that he did not know what VESID is.

The CPE found that the claimant had a Verbal IQ of 69 and a Full Scale IQ of 67. If a claimant has a Verbal IQ of 69 OR a Full Scale IQ of 67, then if he has an additional limitation imposing significant limitations of function, it would require a finding of disabled under listing 12.05C. The claimant’s treating physician concluded that the claimant cannot even perform sedentary work. However, as stated in the class action, ALJ Hoppenfeld has a practice and pattern of ignoring treating physician opinions. Hoppenfeld’s second ME was J. Warren [1]

[1] Axeline also went out of his way to try to discredit the claimant. Even though the claimant had testified that he took extra pain medication today because he knew he would have to sit for a prolonged period of time, and even though he left the room because he needed breaks, Axeline felt it necessary to point out to ALJ Hoppenfeld that the claimant had been sitting during the hearing. As an initial matter, the “sit and squirm” test has been universally rejected. Moreover, if Axeline thought the claimant’s ability to sit at the hearing was relevant, then he should have asked the ALJ to inquire about the effects that sitting at the hearing would have on him the next day. Axeline failed to ask that question because he knew, and as the claimant testified afterwards, he would be in excessive pain and stuck at home the next day.

Axeline, who testified that the claimant’ physical impairments would limit him to light work. The case law holds that the inability to perform very heavy, heavy, or medium work, and being limited to light work, constitute significant limitations of function under 12.05C. Therefore, ALJ Hoppenfeld should have immediately ruled that the claimant met 12.05C. However, just as she did in my prior cases, ALJ Hoppenfeld ignored the reliable treating evidence in favor of ME Jonas’ testimony.

In my prior case, Hoppenfeld accepted ME Jonas’ absurd testimony that fibromyalgia does not exist in order to deny the claimant’s SSD benefits. Here, ALJ Hoppenfeld accepted Jonas’ bizarre testimony regarding Dr. Papapetrou. As an initial matter, Jonas is unqualified to assess Dr. Papapetrou’s CPE. Jonas stated that he is a psychiatrist, not a psychologist, and admitted that he has never performed any psychological testing, including the tests performed in the CPE. Jonas also admitted that the tests used in the CPE are valid tests, including the IQ tests. However, ME Jonas said that he could not accept the IQ scores because Dr. Papapetrou did not state the tests were valid.

Jonas’ conclusion shows the depraved lengths he will go to assist an ALJ in denying benefits. On the one hand, Jonas assumes that the claimant’s IQ scores are not valid because Dr. Papapetrou did not say they were valid. On the other hand, Jonas did not assume that the claimant’s IQ scores are valid, even though Jonas admitted that Dr. Papapetrou did not say the IQ scores were invalid. Similarly, Jonas stated that he would not accept the CPE because Dr. Papapetrou did not state that the claimant was not inebriated. According to Jonas’ logic, the claimant has no left arm because Dr. Papapetrou failed to say he has one. Moreover, Jonas admitted that if the claimant were inebriated, then he would have expected Dr. Papapetrou to say so.

Because Jonas has a history of testifying that the only listing claimants meet is for substance abuse, as he did once again at yesterday’s hearing, I asked ALJ Hoppenfeld to admit into the record a letter from Dr. Patel, the claimant’s doctor, stating that alcohol has nothing to do with the claimant’s inability to work. ALJ Hoppenfeld refused to admit Dr. Patel’s letter into evidence. Hoppenfeld then claimed Dr. Patel’s letter was already admitted, but refused to identify the exhibit initially, and then stated it was Exhibit 13F. I immediately told Hoppenfeld that Dr. Patel’s letter was not in Exhibit 13F. Not surprisingly, ALJ Hoppenfeld and Jonas failed to explain how alcohol could have contributed to the claimant’s learning disorder or retardation, which was evident when he was 10 years old and failed to graduate beyond the fourth grade. The claimant submitted letters from a neighbor and former employer who that the claimant cannot read ort write.

Throughout the hearing, ALJ Hoppenfeld constantly interrupted my questioning of her expert witnesses whenever she recognized the answers would help the claimant’s case. Hoppenfeld coached the expert witnesses with leading questions, and even worse, she repeatedly testified for the experts to prevent them from giving answers that would help the claimant’s case. ALJ Hoppenfeld repeatedly refused to allow the experts to answer questions that she thought would help the claimant. EVERY time that Hoppenfeld refused to develop the record, I asked her to cite what rule or regulation she relied upon to prevent the expert from answering, and Hoppenfeld failed every single time to cite any authority for her rulings. When I said she was not above the law and had to comply with the Social Security rules and regulations her boilerplate non-response was that this was her hearing.

Hypocritically, Hoppenfeld claimed that I was improperly asking the claimant leading questions. I asked her to cite the authority that precluded me from doing so. Once again, Hoppenfeld was incapable to do so. She claimed that her 30 years as a trial lawyer was her authority. I told her that any lawyer would know that when dealing with a claimant with an IQ below 70, which ME Jonas testified should have resulted in a diagnosis of mental retardation, it was appropriate to ask leading questions. In other words, Hoppenfeld had no problem asking her experts leading questions, but refused to allow me to ask leading questions to the claimant despite his being diagnosed with a learning disorder and or mental retardation.

Despite ALJ Hoppenfeld’s interruptions, I did get ME Jonas to testify that he would accept the IQ scores from Dr. Papapetrou’s CPE if he explained (a) why he did not specifically state in the CPE that the test scores were valid, (b) why he did not say if the claimant was inebriated; and (c) why the diagnosis was learning disorder instead of mental retardation. I stated that I would have the claimant or his wife obtain those answers from Dr. Papapetrou, even though for the reasons stated above, Jonas’ professed need for that information is specious at best.

In short, Jonas knew that the CPE required finding the claimant disabled. Therefore, his solution was concocting fraudulent reasons for discrediting it, in order to require the claimant to attend a new consultative examination. In other words, if the evidence conclusively supports disability, throw it out. If Jonas truly believed that the CPE IQ scores could only be deemed reliable if Dr. Papapetrou had explained why he did not specifically state in the CPE that the test scores were valid or if the claimant were inebriated, and why Dr. Papapetrou’s diagnosis was learning disorder instead of mental retardation, then a simple letter or call to Dr. Papapetrou would solve that problem. However, since Hoppenfeld and Jonas know that Dr. Papapetrou would be able to explain away Jonas’ inane excuses they insist that the claimant start all over and see somebody else for testing in the hope that they will get results less favorable to the claimant.

The only reason Hoppenfeld refuses to seek information from Dr. Papapetrou to clarify his IQ scores is because she knows he will support the claimant’s disability. The rules and regulations require ALJ Hoppenfeld to contact Dr. Papapetrou if she believes there is any inconsistency that requires clarification or if there is a gap in the CPE report. The rules and regulations do not allow Hopenfeld to request a second opinion simply because she does not like the fact that the prior opinion requires a finding of disabled. Hoppenfeld cannot even claim that Dr. Papapetrou cannot be trusted because he is a biased treating source. Dr. Papapetrou works for VESID, a State agency just like the State agency that would send the claimant for a consultative exam.

ALJ Hoppenfeld’s use of Jennifer Dizon, the vocational expert (“VE”), was equally unprofessional and violative of the rules and regulations. Hoppenfeld would not allow me to ask hypothetical questions to the VE on the grounds that it was not based on medical evidence. This shows Hoppenfeld’s bias or utter incompetence. The very definition of a hypothetical question is that it is not based on a particular document or finding. In any case, my hypothetical was based upon Dr. Patel’s medical conclusions.

The VE identified three occupations from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) that she claimed the claimant could do: 323.687-014 housekeeper, 729,687-010 electrical assembler, and 230.687-010 pamphlet distributor. Once again, Hoppenfeld continually interrupted my questioning, testified for the VE, and refused to let the VE answer questions, each time Hoppenfeld suspected the testimony would hurt her ability to deny the claimant’ application. Hoppenfeld’s gross failure to develop the record is another example of her anti-claimant bias, which is another one of the allegations in the class action filed against her.

The VE testified that the three occupations had a DOT language level of 1, which she said requires recognizing the meaning of 2,500 words, which was false testimony. The DOT actually states that a language level 1 requires the ability to recognize 2,500 two or three syllable words. Perhaps the VE’s serious mistake could be attributed to her thinking the distinction was unimportant. Although I find it hard to believe that a person responsible for assessing people’s ability to work would think that whether a person can recognize 2,500 words as opposed to 2,500 two and three syllable words to be unimportant. However, the VE’s testimony was outright deceptive. The VE failed to disclose that language level 1 also requires the ability to read at the rate of 95-120 words per minute. The claimant cannot read at all let alone 95 to 120 words a minute. The VE knew that, which explains why she omitted that highly critical fact. The VE also failed to note that language level 1 also requires the ability to compare similarities and differences between words and between series of numbers.

The VE’s description of the language requirements of the occupations gets even worse. She stated that a claimant at that level would have to be able to print simple sentences. What the DOT actually states is that level 1 requires the ability to print simple sentences containing subject, verb, and object, and series of numbers, names, and addresses. Once again, the VE’s omission of these highly probative requirements bespeaks the taint and unreliability of her testimony. Notably, electrical assembler requires language level 2, which is even more complicated than level 1.

Language 2 level requires a passive vocabulary of 5,000-6,000 words; the ability to read at rate of 190-215 words per minute, including adventure stories and comic books; looking up unfamiliar words in dictionary for meaning, spelling, and pronunciation; and the ability to read instructions for assembling model cars and airplanes. As for writing, level 2 requires the ability to write compound and complex sentences, using cursive style, proper end punctuation, and employing adjectives and adverbs. Additionally, level 2 requires the ability to speak clearly and distinctly with appropriate pauses and emphasis, correct punctuation, variations in word order, using present, perfect, and future tenses. The claimant undeniably lacks those abilities too.

The VE’s testimony regarding math level 1 is just as reprehensible. Not having access to the DOT at the hearing, I also asked the VE what the math requirements were for level 1. The VE testified that level 1 required adding and subtracting. Once again, the VE, who stated that she was reading from the DOT, misstated the truth. According to the DOT, math level 1 requires adding and subtracting two-digit numbers, as opposed to leaving the impression that adding and subtracting single digit numbers was all that was required. Even more egregious, the VE intentionally omitted that math level 1 requires the ability to multiply and divide 10’s and 100’s by 2, 3, 4, 5. The VE purposely concealed that information because she recognized that it was at odds with the claimant’s ability to perform those tasks. Concrete evidence of the VE’s despicable testimony was her falsely testifying that the claimant said he performed measurements while working as a roofer. I stated that there was no such testimony, and then asked the claimant if he did any measuring at work, to which he said no.

The VE admitted that according to the DOT the claimant could not perform the three occupations if he were unable to read or write. However, the VE then testified that the claimant could do the housekeeper job and pamphlet distributor anyway. When I tried asking the VE to explain the basis for her conclusion that was contrary to the DOT, Hoppenfeld refused to allow the VE to answer, even though SSR 00-4p specifically requires that information. Hoppenfeld refused to allow me to cross examine the VE properly on that point because she knew the VE lacked any basis for her testimony that conflicted with the DOT. I asked the VE how many pamphlet distributors she had observed at work because I wanted to see the basis for her testimony that contradicted the DOT. The VE evasively said she had observed 500 pamphlet distributors at work. When I asked how many did she observe for a full 8 hour day to see if they required no reading or writing, Hoppenfeld told the VE not to answer, although the VE then admitted the answer was none, and that she had merely passed by those purported 500 pamphlet distributors at street corners.

I have lived in Manhattan for many years, and never saw that many pamphlet distributors, yet the VE somehow managed to see 500 of them in Rochester. More importantly, the VE’s claim that she knows a pamphlet distributor does not need to read and write because she passed them by on street corners is an insult to her profession, and demonstrates that when her opinion contradicts the DOT it is not reliable. Similarly, the VE testified that the claimant could work as an electrical assembler, contrary to the DOT, because that work did not require the ability read and write. However, when I asked how many electrical assemblers she observed at work in order to come to her conclusion which was at odds with the DOT she admitted that she had never done so.

Based upon Dr. Patel’s conclusion that the claimant could not stoop, kneel, or crouch, I asked the VE if a person with those limitations could do the three jobs that the she had identified. The VE said that she thought a person could. However, when I asked how she made that conclusion contrary to the DOT, the VE said she had no answer. In fact, because the VE admitted that she had no answer, ALJ Hoppenfeld said that she would hold the hearing open so the VE could provide answers.

I then asked the VE if the claimant lacked the ability to pay attention and concentrate, which is what Dr. Patel had concluded, could he perform any of the three occupations. The VE said yes because those occupations were SVP 2. However, when I asked where the DOT stated that an occupation with an SVP of 1 or 2 did not require the ability to pay attention or concentrate, once again, the VE was unable to state where the DOT said that.

ALJ Hoppenfeld precluded additional cross exam of the VE. The claimant testified that because of his hands he drops things. He showed the ALJ how his hand cramps up into a claw. The records reflect the claimant’s hand tremors, and he testified that Dr. Patel said he had arthritis in his hands. Dr. Patel concluded in report that the claimant is restricted from using his hands for handling, grasping, turning, and twisting objects, which the three occupations the VE identified require. Not surprisingly, the VE failed to address that point, and Hoppenfeld omitted those limitations, as well as many others, from the hypothetical questions she posed to the VE.

As you may surmise, the above represents merely the tip of the iceberg. Hoppenfeld’s actions yesterday were emblematic of the unfair way that she handles hearings. Her anti-claimant bias is transparent. She referred to the claimant’s testimony under oath as “claims,” indicating a predetermined decision not to accept his statements as credible. At the same time, Hoppenfeld readily accepted the testimony of Jonas regarding the CPE, even though he never did any IQ testing and is not a psychologist, and Hoppenfeld readily accepted the VE’s testimony, which is replete with errors, omissions, and inconsistencies.

In short, you have an illiterate 52 year man, who never went past the fourth grade, with a history of unskilled menial heavy work, who even Jonas admitted is mentally retarded or learning disabled, who went for help to VESID to try to work after he was no longer able to work as a roofer helper. ALJ Hoppenfeld went way out of her way to deprive the claimant a full and fair hearing by following her practice and pattern of unfair tactics. As usual, Hoppenfeld showed she was rejecting the opinion of the treating physician, Dr. Patel, in favor of non-examining sources. She showed that she would rely on ME Axeline not only to reject Dr. Patel’s findings and conclusions, but also the findings and conclusions of Dr. Gallo, who performed the consultative examination for Social Security. Hoppenfeld showed that she would use Jonas, who investigation could show was selected out of rotation, to reject the findings and conclusions of Dr. Papapetrou, who works for New York State, even though Jonas lacks the expertise to critique IQ and psychological testing.

Social Security should investigate all the experts that Hoppenfeld uses to see if she complies with the rotation policy. Hoppenfeld’s pervasive interruption of cross examination, testifying for expert witnesses, and refusing to develop the record by improperly ordering experts not to answer questions demonstrates a gross deprivation of a fair hearing. Simply going through the motions of holding a hearing is not the same as conducting a full and fair hearing.

Previous    Next

 

Loading
  • 2023 (5)
  • March (1)
    • DDS Laziness
  • February (1)
    • DDS Sham
  • January (3)
    • ALJ Carlton Reversed Again
    • Hartford Breached Its Fiduciary Duty
    • Excuses Excuses
  • 2022 (46)
  • December (3)
    • SSD Embarrassment
    • Approved In Under Two Months
    • ALJ Grossman Reversed Again
  • November (1)
    • Is SSD Permanent? No.
  • October (6)
    • SSA - Is Anyone Listening?
    • Fraudulent CE's
    • Cost of Living Increase
    • Unconscionable Delays by ALJ
    • Podiatrists
    • CE Boondoggle Continues
  • September (1)
    • Yao Syndrome
  • August (8)
    • SSA's Total Dysfunction
    • Long COVID Approval
    • SS Benefits Increase for 2023
    • Lack of Funding
    • SS Terminology
    • Nurse Practitioners
    • Treating Source Still Prevails
    • Living with Long COVID
  • July (3)
    • IMA & DDS
    • Hartford Loses Again
    • Long COVID Strugglers
  • June (3)
    • Lincoln Denial Reversed
    • Adversarial ALJs
    • 2d Circuit Reverses LTD Dismissal
  • May (8)
    • Lupus Anticoagulant
    • Consultative Exams
    • 45 Days Means 45 Days
    • Updating Opinions
    • SS Approves Long COVID
    • Compassionate Allowance
    • SSD and Retirement
    • Consistency and Persuasiveness
  • April (2)
    • Wasteful & Inequitable CEs
    • Overwhelming Opinions
  • March (7)
    • Multiple Impairments
    • Growing Dire Need
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Treating CE
    • Long Covid Financial Duress
    • Aid for Long COVID
    • Federal Court Remand
  • February (2)
    • Nystagmus
    • SSD Wait Times Increase
  • January (2)
    • Increase in Benefits
    • Objective Medical Evidence Remains Key
  • 2021 (44)
  • December (5)
    • Another Win in Federal Court
    • ANS Disorder
    • Pain Management
    • Alzheimer’s Disease
    • Disabling Migraine Headaches
  • November (3)
    • State Agency Notices
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Don’t Give Up
  • October (4)
    • EAJA Fees Approved
    • Typical DDS Waste
    • Catatonic Schizophrenia
    • Support Letters
  • September (4)
    • State Agency Doctors
    • Lung Cancer Approval
    • DDS Inconsistency
    • ALJ Schriver Reversed
  • August (1)
    • The Wait is Over
  • July (8)
    • LTD Buy Outs
    • Covid Long Haulers
    • Remand for Benefits
    • Prostate Cancer
    • More Good News?
    • SS Commissioner Fired
    • COVID Long-Haulers
    • SDNY Affirms SSD Win
  • June (5)
    • Prudential Approval
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • We Take Care of Our Own?
    • Mystery Solved
    • More State Agency Deceit
  • May (1)
    • Responsiveness Counts
  • April (5)
    • ALJ Gets It Right
    • Berkowitz Reversed A Second Time
    • 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 © 2023, Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott

    Site Powered By: WebDesignYou