social security disability hearing
 

Hello everyone, I'm new here and I was reading some info on here and saw some good answers, so I thought I would post on here to see what you guys thought of my day in court. I had my hearing on monday- the 26th of September, I have scorosis of the spine, herniated discs, bipolar1, anemia, depression, migraines, and I have a hemorrhage. In my left eye which is causing blindness and can never be corrected. I have been fighting for my s.s.d.I. for 3 years. I tried t work and only lasted not more then a month on either job. I do have a lawyer representing me. I am 39 years old. My vision problem prevents me from driving day or night (being I can't tell how far the car in front of me is and cannot see out of my left side) I cannot read small print or work under florescent lights. And the list goes on... before I went in front of the judge, my lawyer told me that he was a difficult man and just answer the questions honestly and not be afraid to tell him everything about my disabilities and it could take about an hour and that he is aware of my case as he reviews it prior to seeing me. When we walked in to the room, I started getting nervous. There was no vocational person there and it was just the judge and someone typing the whole conversation. The judge asked me just a couple of questions, we changed my on set date and then my lawyer asked me some questions and in 20 minutes, we were done. When we walked out, my lawyer said she felt good about it and it was the shortest time she was ever in front of him. Now I'm waiting from my decision. How PNG does it take and I'm scared about it as well. I lice in florida and heared horror stories about s.s.d.I. here. Does anyone have any ideas?.....thanks... PS sorry it was so long!

It is real hard to tell, but when there is no vocational person, and you reset the onset date...sounds good. :)

It takes them a while to get the letter to you, but you might keep an eye on your bank acct. Sometimes the money will get there before the award letter.

Did he set it to an earlier time?
One of the last things the judge did was set my onset date to the actual day I was disabled instead of the application date.
I had two hearings, the first judge was a real :yikes:
He retired only a couple months later, and I saw a another judge the second time. What a night and day difference! One thing fer sure....never give up!

Thanks for some answers! My lawyer changed my on set date
From 2/09 to 5/10. Being I worked during some months between the two dates. But of course the job only lasted a couple of months. I wonder f the change in dates helped my case! Thanks again!!

Hi Katz! It sounds like everything went well to me. I have a question though, why did your lawyer change your onset date by 15 months?? I worked too, for 3 months, and my lawyer stated that it was an unsuccessful work attempt. The judge agreed and I was granted full ssdi even through those months.

It sounds to me that the judge was trying to save tax payers some money. They have been doing a deal or no deal for the last few years, including with me, but I called his bluff and it paid off. By changing your onset date I am pretty sure you will get a favorable decision but remember you will have to wait until 10/12 to get medicare benefits and your payments will now start 10/10, just in case you didn't know.

This is often done when someone has turned 50 or 55 during the SSD process. By using a later date, a lower standard of approval is allowed.

There can also be an increase of impairment that has been clearly documented in someone's medical history.

Is it worth fighting over the backpay? That's up to each applicant. But forcing an ALJ to use the original date very well might mean a denial. The applicant can then appeal or start a new application (which will probably lower your backpay further, at least temporarily) or both!

Keep in mind when if someone appeals the ALJ decision, they're not just appealing the date, they're appealing the entire decision, and it could be approved or denied.

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.

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.

If you change your onset date to get a favorable decision from the ALJ then you lose the right to appeal it. Like Janke has stated, the ALJ is acting like a prosecuter with him being the judge, trial, and jury. In my opinion, like I have stated earlier, the ALJ just wants to save money and, like Janke stated, wants to make sure his percentages are low for overturns.

Unfortunately right now with sooo many scammers and budget cuts many people involved with ssi or ssdi decisions are afraid to be sacked for giving away the farm or denying the rightful so they compromise, in my opinion.

I was being lazy (in other words, I'm in a fairly high level of pain and didn't want to increase said pain by researching)and waiting for Janke to reply.

This link, describes a similar situation, and the attorney states his client received a PF decision, so she would still be able to appeal if she felt like risking her approval. http://www.ssdanswers.com/2009/11/12...ynical-judges/

This link says that the ALJ can write it as a FF decision if the claimant agrees to changing the onset date. http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page4-29.html

So Cherry, how are you familiar with this? I'm missing the difference between one ALJ writing it as FF and another as PF.

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.

A fully favorable is when the judge agrees with your onset date, does not matter if it is changed or not. A partially favorable is when the judge agrees you are disabled but does not believe you are disabled as long as you state you are. For example, say you broke you arm in June 2009 and in October 09 you have to have surgery and during surgery you suffer a disabling stroke. The judge will say that you could still work even with a broken arm so they give you a PF decision starting October 09 and not June 09.

If you refuse to change your onset date in this example and you receive a PF decision then it can be appeal but at the risk of losing everything, like the website says. However, if the judge states that he'll give you an otr decision in your favor if you change the onset date then you can't go back and say I made a mistake. Is that clearer?

The reason the judges will ask you to change it instead of doing a PF decision is because once you bite that apple it is over and they won't have to worry about it biting them in the derriere later on. It is pretty much like a plea bargain. This way they get to have a very high success rate and save taxpayers some money while you get your benefits almost immediately and a piece of mind.

By the way, the ALJ wanted me to give up 2yrs of backpay and medicare eligibility. I told my lawyer I rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty nail. I got a FF.

Cherry, I provided examples where it appears different ALJs are writing their decisions as FF or PF for similar circumstances.

So, no, your post really doesn't clear things up, although I am clear what your opinion is, just as I was with your previous post. If what you're expressing is more than just your personal experience, and if there are rules, regulations, or rulings above the ALJ level that you are familiar with, then linkage would be greatly appreciated.

I just read on a s.s.d. website that s.s. changed the rule about if you get denied at your hearing, you cannot appeal it and start a new case for the same disabilities. You have to decide to do one or the other. I think the site said it was changed in July 2011.

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.

Wow! Good for you Cherry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello. My hearing went something like yours. The judge asked me to amend my onset date also. I agreed but the VE never testified. The judge asked me my address, and my name, and if agreed with in other words a deal. Asked about my meds. So Im in the same boat as you. Im waiting too. Hope yours goes the way you want. Good luck.