Mike, I have a couple of questions for Elliot.

When was the last time that SS solicited his neurologist for information?

If it has been "recent" then there could have been something written in his neurologist's file that lead SS to interpret his "improvement", e.g. with medication, Elliot has improved 'whatever'. Hence, they received their misguided impression from something like that.

What is truly infuriating is that there was not, nor never will be from SS, since they only push papers without caring about the people they push papers for, an inquiry about whatever they read that caused them to interpret "improvement"

His situation is one of my greatest fears. I deal with both SS and Hartford Insurance for long term disability benefits. It has never occurred to me that SS would be the evil villain. My greatest fear has always been Hartford's interpretation of my physician statements which they ask for annually, which I don't usually get to read. Gratefully, my current MD neurologist at Univ of Maryland sends me a copy and is wonderful about the words she uses, which is the critical part...The Words Used to define my PD.

I have always felt that legislation needs to be in place to protect anyone with a progressive illness, one from which there is no recovery. Those patients should have an initial review, including whatever testing/proof is needed to insure there is not a false diagnosis. From that the SS benefits should be approved and become permanent!!

I also don't agree that one needs to be disabled for two years after SSDI is approved before Medicare kicks in. I realize that this rule is in place in the event the patient does improve, but these permanently progressively ill patients will NEVER get well, so the proofing period of two years needs to go away. It is a serious hardship on those who need meds and medical treatment over that period...like me who lives alone and lives on my own income.