Had my hearing
 

well i had my hearing this am it lasted about 40 min and the judge finally asked to go off the record and have my lawyer ask me if i would accept a change of onset date. He then stated i would receive a letter in 4 to 6 weeks any idea what it means when they ask for change on set date.open to ideas as to what this could mean
Gail

Hearing
 

It generally means a favorable decision with less backpay. Google Gordon Gates for a indept explanation.

The most common reason for this is if you turned 50 or 55, since they figure you'd be less likely to adapt and rejoin the labor pool. Or it could be tied to certain medical evidence--let's say you applied for diabetes, depression, and a heart condition, and then suffered a major heart attack two years after applying... (I'm not sure if this is the best of examples...but that's the general idea.)

If you agreed, it's fairly likely you will be approved. The big concern is not just just losing backpay, but also if your monthly benefits are lowered. Hopefully, your attorney took this into consideration.

You are able to appeal the decision, since it's a Partially Favorable Decision. (There have been some arguments that if you've voluntarily ammendd the onset date, you may not be able to appeal. It's been several years since I read up on this, so if it becomes an issue please don't trust my memory of all this.) The danger of appealing, even if allowed, is that the Appeal's Council or the ALJ it's remanded to can then deny you.

It would have been nice if the judge had given you an on the record decision if you agreed to the onset date change... Odds are likely in your favor. And if you were denied, you came very close to approval and would want to appeal asap.

It is always been odd to me that an ALJ would ask for an agreement to an amended onset date. The only reason I think it would make sense is that it makes the job of the ALJ easier. The ALJ has full authority to make a fully favorable, a partially favorable or an unfavorable, regardless of whether or not the applicant agrees. An ALJ can choose an onset date later than what was alleged and only award benefits with a later date. Why is it, then, that the ALJ has to get permission from the claimant to use this later date? I think that it is just because it is easier to write, easier to justify, easier to withstand scrutiny by a higher level authority, more likely not be overturned by the Appeals Council.

If an ALJ is willing to give an approval with a later onset date, as a partially favorable decision, why doesn't he/she just do it? Why hold out this bargain (wink, wink)? If the applicant agrees to a later onset date then they will be approved and if the applicant does not agree to a later onset date then they will be denied? Either the evidence supports the date of onset or it does not. Should not matter if the applicant agrees.

However, having said all that, there is also the individual proclivities of an ALJ. Just because I find it an odd practice, the ALJ may find it a reasonable, prudent, and justifiable way of doing business. So no one should make this important decision (agreeing to an onset date) based on my observation of an odd practice.

Onset date
 

What amazes me, they make you wait a year to see them, and in 15 to 40 minutes they all of sudden can make a snap decision.

The ALJ doesn't just open an applicant's file the day of the hearing. He/she review the application prior to the hearing, and then make decisions accordingly, like will a Voc Counselor be needed, or does the applicant require a medical evaluation by a SS doc.

Had my hearing
 

And that takes a year, OTR, OTR, OTR! That can be done in 3 months

Hi, not sure if this helps, but when I went before the Judge, it was Him, my advocate, hubby and I. The Judge also asked me if I would change the onset date, from 2006 to 2007. He explained that new medical evidence was reported after my onset date of filing, that would support my disability case more so than in 2006.

I agreed to it and He gave me a fully favorable On the record ruling right then and there. I lost alot of backpay, but after the years of waiting, it didn't matter to me at that point.

I wish you luck and hang in there.

Blessings,
Angel

Onset date
 

That's my point exactly, why make a person wait for a year, when that information is right in front of them, even the commissioner of Social Security realized it makes no sense, I bet it took less than 15 minutes to make that decision.

So the older you are the more likely you would receive SSD?

It can, for those that are approved using the "grid rules."

Please my post #46 in this sticky: http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/thread148967-5.html

Here, here
 

You are so correct, it's almost like some sick joke, a waste of time and energy, so sad.

i was also asked if i would accept a later onset date based on a medical test that definitely proved that i had peripheral neuropathy as of that date and also showed the degree of severity . I lost quite a bit of backpay but accepted the later onset date because anything can happen if you dont. a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. in my opinion you did the right thing bgt.

Onset
 

Did they ask at your hearing or before?

I understand that rationale to some degree. And since I have no control over the outcome of a case, I would never tell anyone not to agree to a later onset. My point is that if an ALJ is willing to deny or approve you outright without your agreement, why does he/she have to get your agreement to partially approve and partially deny? Why can't he/she just make a decision?

I still think it is because it prevents you from appealing the decision you agreed to. If an ALJ is willing to approve a case with an unfavorable onset, why does the claimant have to agree to it? Just write it up!

There is some hidden reasoning, IMO

actually it was about the only thing talked about at the hearing after waiting for one for 2 years.

im not sure either Janke, however my decision did read fully favorable when i got it. maybe by agreeing you are amending your onset date so you can be issued a fully favorable decision?

the change of onset didn't make but about a 3 month difference the judge said that was when the evidence got strong enough to stand. I am just glad it is over

Two years
 

It kinda of reminds you of guys wrongly convicted, someone knows they are innocent, 2 years pass and the truth comes out. So often, most people lose everything, and it just doesn't have to be that way, there should be an additional check for pain and suffering.

If the applicant decides to amend their disability Onset Date, it can be done so in writing or verbally during testimony at an ALJ hearing. The ALJ then writes it as a Fully Favorable Decision. If the ALJ chooses a new date, which the applicant doesn't agree with, then it's considered an Established Onset Date, and it's written as a Partially Favorable Decision, which can be appealed.

With my first application, I had a last minute substitute attorney, and I drew an inexperienced interim ALJ, so I'm not sure that my experience on the occassion was normal, but I agreed for my attorney to bring up the idea, the idea was discussed, but I made it clear that I believe my health had declined and that I was worse off, though I probably didn't have sufficient documentation of it at the time... I received a closed period award for backpay, and it was written as a PFD, which I was allowed to appeal. Eventually, I received a FFD going back to my original Alleged Onset Date, but it took a second application.

A note to future readers:
For anyone that might consider amending their AOD as a strategy to strengthen their application, you can do so by submitting form SSA-5002. This can be done even earlier than an ALJ hearing..., Make 100% sure the new AOD falls under your Last Insured Date though, as well as verifying it won't decrease your monthly benefit. If you can document a major decline in your health (especially tied to a traumatic event, like a heart attack for example) and change your AOD accordingly, sacrificing some backpay, might be well worth it.

Janke, (especially, but anyone else as well) if the above is bad advice, please correct me. ;)