[Janke]

According to data compiled by the National Association of Social Security Claimant Representatives (a lawyer's organization), in 2009, the Appeals Council approved 2% of the 68,821 cases that were filed for total of 1376 claims. Initial decisions made by DDS had a 37% approval rate for the 2,686,152 claims file for a total of 993,876.

The ratio between claims approved by the DDS and claims approved by the AC is 993,876 to 1,376 or approximately 722 to 1.

A much higher percentage and a much higher total number are approved at the initial level than at the AC level. Heck, the DDS pays more claims on the initial level, 993,876 than the ALJ level, 63% of 554,025 or 349,035, by nearly three to one. Dispels the myth that EVERYONE is denied the first time. Blows it out of the water.

I am assuming NOSSCR knows what they are talking about in their published material. Still can't find the raw data.

http://www.socialsecuritydisabilityl...ll-chart-1.pdf

[legalmania]

The numbers don't match up. NOSSCR state themselves that some data is not reflected in the data shown.

"Other non-disability eligibility factors may affect final eligibility for benefits , i.e., some cases with a favorable disability decision could ultimately be denied for failure to meet other eligibility requirements. Some disability claims not eligible on non-disability grounds will not be referred for a disability decision and are not reflected in the data shown. Decisions include Title II – Social Security Disability Insurance and Title XVI – Supplemental Security Income (SSI)cases. Some claimants may file concurrently for both Title II and Title XVI. Concurrent Title II/XVI cases are counted as one."

The appeals council have claimed to have processed 89,066 yearly, with 80, 040 cases still pending, in 2009. This chart only seems to considering the cases that the AC approved not the ones that are remanded back to the ALJ level, or the ones that have gone onto the Federal level and won, which could make the data a much higher percentage. I don't think they can keep an accurate number, because once it leaves the AC office they don't count the data of the cases won or denied. For now I am personally sticking with what I have read in the legal research of case law and what I have read was a lot of cases are sent back to the ALJ level and approved, not to mention the ones that are appealed at the Federal level and won there. So once again if you have an appeal at any level never lose hope.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answ...0hear%20yearly

[Janke]

A case that is remanded (sent back) to the ALJ level is not a case that is approved by the AC. It is a case that gets a second look by the ALJ. It may be approved, it may be denied. But it is not a case that is approved by the AC. Can't count that as an allowance by the AC. A remand is not an approval. It may become one if the ALJ writes it up that way. 22% of the cases sent to the AC are remanded. 73% are still denied. Higher than the DDS.

And so what if claims that are ultimately denied for non-disability reasons are excluded from the data. A person who is not insured for SSDI or has excess income or resources for SSI can't be paid benefits no matter how disabled they are so that data should not be factored in at all. And since the decision that a person is disabled applies to both an SSDI and an SSI claim, it makes much more sense to count them as one decision rather than two decisions.

Positive thinking is generally a good thing. Being an optimist is generally a better way to live than being a pessimist. But positive thinking doesn't change reality. Reality is that of the 2,686,152 claims filed in 2009, 1,376 were approved by the AC, .05%, 1 out of 1952.

[legalmania]

I thought I was clear in what I said. The numbers are not consistent with the 2009 AC numbers. How can the NOSSCR be accurate when only half the cases in 2009 were considered.

The legal meaning of remand is as follows:

West's Encyclopedia of American Law:
Remand
Top
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law Encyclopedia
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

To send back.

A higher court may remand a case to a lower court so that the lower court will take a certain action ordered by the higher court
The chart does not consider certain cases, so win or lose the data is still not accurate . All I know is that posters were writing you only had a 2% chance of winning at the AC level, I knew that was not accurate, the actual data will probably never be completely known.

[legalmania]

Here is a little information I found out about NOSSCR: You can come to your own conclusion:

http://www.nosscr.org/index.html

Disclaimer
The NOSSCR web pages are a public resource containing general information which is intended - but not promised or guaranteed - to be correct and current. Do not rely on information at this site in place of the advice of competent counsel.

Because individual circumstances differ, you should not rely on any information here as being applicable to your given factual situation. You must not rely on any of the general information provided here as being specifically applicable to you.

These pages are not intended to be a source of advertising, solicitation, or legal advice. As a result, you should not consider this information to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, you should not rely on information provided here as constituting legal advice, and you should always seek the advice of competent counsel in your own state.

Internet Links: NOSSCR does not intend links on our pages to other web pages and their owners to be referrals or endorsements of the linked entities. We will gladly remove any link from this site upon request from the linked entity. This web site is not sponsored or associated with any linked entity unless specifically stated. The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential interest to the reader.

Our FAQ Pages: Answers to "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) are general information provided as a public service. Nothing included in the FAQs should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship between NOSSCR (or its members) and the reader, nor should anything in these FAQs be deemed the provision of legal advice or a legal opinion.

We strongly discourage the use of Internet E-mail for confidential or sensitive information, because E-mail is not a secure medium of communication.

[Janke]

Originally Posted by legalmania

Here is a little information I found out about NOSSCR: You can come to your own conclusion:

http://www.nosscr.org/index.html

Disclaimer
The NOSSCR web pages are a public resource containing general information which is intended - but not promised or guaranteed - to be correct and current. Do not rely on information at this site in place of the advice of competent counsel.

Because individual circumstances differ, you should not rely on any information here as being applicable to your given factual situation. You must not rely on any of the general information provided here as being specifically applicable to you.

These pages are not intended to be a source of advertising, solicitation, or legal advice. As a result, you should not consider this information to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, you should not rely on information provided here as constituting legal advice, and you should always seek the advice of competent counsel in your own state.

Internet Links: NOSSCR does not intend links on our pages to other web pages and their owners to be referrals or endorsements of the linked entities. We will gladly remove any link from this site upon request from the linked entity. This web site is not sponsored or associated with any linked entity unless specifically stated. The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential interest to the reader.

Our FAQ Pages: Answers to "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) are general information provided as a public service. Nothing included in the FAQs should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship between NOSSCR (or its members) and the reader, nor should anything in these FAQs be deemed the provision of legal advice or a legal opinion.

We strongly discourage the use of Internet E-mail for confidential or sensitive information, because E-mail is not a secure medium of communication.

I totally agree. Do not rely on any Internet site or any anonymous or even a known poster to a message board to give you any accurate information. This board, for instance, could be full of misinformation from many sources.

[legalmania]

There are several sites out there with accurate information, like the Social Security Website, lexis nexis, findlaw.com, mlanet.org. If you stick with the experts you have a better chance of getting the proper information. Whenever I write a brief or have to fill out a legal document, I always go to the government sites with the actual statutes, case law and whatever else I need. Neuro Talk is mostly a support site and once in a while you can get good information, although I wouldn't use 95% of this information as fact.

[Janke]

Just can't resist.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/legisl...Rpt_072403.pdf

This is old data (2002) from the Commissioner of Social Security as she testifies before Congress. This came from the Social Security website so it meets the previous poster's definition of accurate information. There is a waterfall chart on on page 25 showing AC allowances as 3% and remands as 25% and denials 70%. Not sure why I can't find current data. This chart is similar to the previous chart supplied in the NOSSCR material referenced above which has a footnote that the data came from SSA's ODPMI (Office of Disability Program Management Information) but I just can't find the raw data.

No doubt an argument will be made that this is invalid since it is 8 years old. But that is an argument, not a fact. This is fact.

I will resist the desire to make any more comments.

[legalmania]

Originally Posted by Janke

Just can't resist.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/legisl...Rpt_072403.pdf

This is old data (2002) from the Commissioner of Social Security as she testifies before Congress. This came from the Social Security website so it meets the previous poster's definition of accurate information. There is a waterfall chart on on page 25 showing AC allowances as 3% and remands as 25% and denials 70%. Not sure why I can't find current data. This chart is similar to the previous chart supplied in the NOSSCR material referenced above which has a footnote that the data came from SSA's ODPMI (Office of Disability Program Management Information) but I just can't find the raw data.

No doubt an argument will be made that this is invalid since it is 8 years old. But that is an argument, not a fact. This is fact.

I will resist the desire to make any more comments.

Waterfall? It was closer to a flood. The numbers were outrageous, It's no wonder they started the DSI and the NPRM since then, at least today the chance of having a hearing and winning is a possibility. They were fact until 2005 when it became amended rules and laws.

[finz]

"NOSSCR state themselves that some data is not reflected in the data shown.

"Other non-disability eligibility factors may affect final eligibility for benefits , i.e., some cases with a favorable disability decision could ultimately be denied for failure to meet other eligibility requirements. Some disability claims not eligible on non-disability grounds will not be referred for a disability decision and are not reflected in the data shown. Decisions include Title II – Social Security Disability Insurance and Title XVI – Supplemental Security Income (SSI)cases. Some claimants may file concurrently for both Title II and Title XVI. Concurrent Title II/XVI cases are counted as one.""

************************************************** **


Why on earth would that data be included if it's not pertinent ?

If you want to know what percentage are accepted at the AC level.....which is the stat YOU SAID could not be correct from the other thread, cases which do not meeet SSDI eligibility for non-disability grounds should not be considered.....they should haven't been filed for in the first place.