Quote:
Originally Posted by LIT LOVE
Janke,
In the case of an applicant agreeing to a new application date, do you know if they receive a Partially Favorable Decision, or is there a formal application change which results in a Fully Favorable Decision, resulting in an applicant losing the right to appeal the decision?
And what if the applicant has agreed to the new date and still receives a full denial, are they stuck using it in the appeal? (This seems far fetched, but with SSD I never assume anything...)
If the answer is a Partially Favorable Decision, then the only thing I can think of is that the ALJ is attempting to keep their appeal rates lower by getting the applicant to compromise.
|
I don't believe the right to appeal is lost, but the appeal argument is a bit disingenuous "I previously agreed that I became disabled on 9/1/09 but I now disagree with the decision that I became disabled on on 9/1/09".
If the goal of an ALJ was to save the tax dollars, they would deny more claims since paying benefits for the next 10, 20, 30 years costs alot more than paying retroactive benefits for one or two additional years.
I think it all has to do with making decision writing easier since there is no discussion of the period that is not being paid. And, having the claimant agree makes it less likely that they could win an appeal. The way attorneys, the Appeals Council and District Court parse every word, look for every possible nuance that could lead to a changed decision, I can understand why an ALJ would do it, I just think it is wrong to offer an amended onset with the subtext that a claim would be denied without agreement. If the claim should be denied, deny it. If the claim should be approved, approve it. If the alleged onset cannot be justified, pick an onset and justify it. Do the job that you are being paid a six figure salary to do.