Quote:
Originally Posted by cherry33778
I read what was on the links that were provided and I gave direct examples. I am just stating what was explained to me by my lawyer. I have NEVER heard of taking the "settlement" and it not be final. That would deceive the point. It is like saying you want a steak, then eat all of it, pay the bill and go home, then the next day say you should of had fish and try to get your money back, it's INSANE. Most people have the common sense, without needing references, to know that a settlement is final and that is exactly what this is.
Sure, you could try to overturn it but you will sound crazy for saying you got what you wanted. Remember the saying, "Be careful for what you wish for, because you just might get it."
|
I'm sorry, but common sense does not equate with legal veracity in this country, and the laws pertaining to SSD are no exception. Having gone through both an appeal and an ALJ hearing pro se, that was something I learned immediately.
If you're going to state something as if it is a legal fact, then it is not unreasonable for someone to ask if you have an actual legal reference to back it up. If you're simply voicing your opinion or relaying a personal legal experience, then qualify your responses so that you don't accidently give out erroneous legal advice.
The link I provided for ssdanswers.com shows an example of an ALJ hearing where the attorney used the amended onset date as a strategy for an easier approval since the standard is lower when an applicant turns 50 (or 55). The ALJ later (neither the OP or my examples were OTR decisions) sent a PF decision. In that instance, the applicant preserved her legal right to appeal the ALJ decision. Whether it made "sense" in her case to exercise that right is not the point.
You stated, "If you change your onset date to get a favorable decision from the ALJ then you lose your right to appeal it." It appears that it is at the discretion of the ALJ how they write the decision. So an accurate statement would be, "If you change your onset date to get a favorable decision from the ALJ then you MIGHT lose your right to appeal it."
You then stated, "Like Janke has stated, the ALJ is acting like a prosecuter with him being the judge, trial, and jury."
Actually what Jank said was, "This is not like a plea bargain on a criminal case." "The ALJ is the arbiter. He/she only has to agree with himself or herself."
Comparing the process to a civil matter and calling it a "settlement" doesn't improve the analogy.
Most will not play chicken with an ALJ over ongoing benefits to secure backpay, like you did. And, most people will probably not appeal PF decisions with amended onset dates. BUT, our personal opinions don't really matter. The applicant's legal rights, including their right to appeal, are what matters.
If anyone can identify any nuances that make an amended onset date binding, that would be very helpful information.