Originally Posted by Janke

This is something that I never understood. An ALJ can make a partially favorable decision with an adverse onset date with or without the claimant's permission. Having the claimant agree just makes writing the decision easier. If an ALJ is willing to make a favorable decision with a later onset date, why doesn't he/she just make that decision without getting an agreement from the claimant? This is not a like a plea bargain on a criminal case. There is no jury that is waiting to make a verdict that could go either way. The ALJ is the arbiter. He/she only has to agree with himself or herself. Of course, writing a legally defensible partially favorable decision does leave the ALJ's decision open to reversal on appeal and may be more difficult to justify legally. But I just don't understand how any ALJ can say either agree with the later onset date or you'll be denied. If the evidence justifies the later onset date, then the evidence justifies it.

Makes me wonder if the evidence justifies any onset date or if this is mostly legal wrangling between lawyers and ALJ's. I just don't get it. The ALJ says agree with me or you get nothing when the ALJ can make any decision he/she wants to make, whether you agree or not. The evidence either supports the earlier onset, the later onset or no onset. And the ALJ is the person who is empowered to make the decision.