Appeals Council
 

I had a hearing 1-23-15, denial letter 2-27-15, appeals council remand 5-30-15, does anyone think this is fast? By the way, this is my 3rd remand.

You've attempted to expedite the process, and it's obviously worked. This is really the only thing that intervention by your local senator or congress person's office can achieve.

Otr
 

My new lawyer applied for Otr, at this point a hearing would be pointless.

In your opinion a hearing is not needed, but that may not be an ALJ's opinion.

OTR's are very rarely granted. They must be Fully Favorable decisions--in other words, if the ALJ thinks you should qualify but feels a later Established Onset Date is appropriate (such as when you turned 55) he can't approve your OTR.

They're also usually only granted for those that qualify by meeting a Listed Impairment. Unless you have new medical documentation that proves you met the requirements for an Impaired Listing going back to your Alleged Onset Date, then you will most likely have to go through yet another ALJ hearing.

If the AC felt a hearing was not needed, they also could have granted you a Fully Favorable decision.

IMO, having a chance for a new ALJ hearing, before a new ALJ, is an excellent opportunity.

55
 

All they have to say is amend onset date, and we'll jump on it, to have a hearing and ask me the same questions they asked at the previous 5 hearings is nonsensical. I've already concluded, either my answers will be short or I'm going to try and get out of being there. The appeals council one directive is the treating physcians rule, you don't need a hearing to conclude that matter, unless it's more personal than business.

It is SS policy that an OTR decision must be Fully Favorable. The process simply does not work the way you want it to.

If the AC ruling doesn't include the language "de novo", than your hearing might be quite brief and limited to the issue the AC has found that needs to be addressed. While this might be your preference, it will limit your attorney's ability to prove that you qualify for SSDI.

BTW, your attorney could have amended your AOD to when you turned 55 and used that as a premise for your OTR. Have you discussed if, or when, you will offer to amend you AOD with him?

He, of course has a financial incentive to try and collect as much backpay as possible for you, since he is no longer limited to the 6k max fee. Perhaps I'm being cynical about his motives...

Fee
 

Lit, what do you mean about not limited to 6k max fee? It's funny, my attorney had already drafted an argument for federal court, we didn't expect another remand, and not that fast. If this was not so tragic, this would be funny. The doctor the appeals council directed attention to has concluded I can't work, how can they get around her?

Doctors never make the decision whether or not you can work or not work. Why? Because it is a complex medical/legal evaluation. Doctors can claim what they believe to be your ability to sit, stand, what weight you can lift, etc. (this is the point of having them fill out RFC forms.) But, if the measurements listed are not consistent with your medical records, the ALJ can choose not to rely on them. If your doctor performs (or sends you out for) a Functional Capacity Evaluation, the legitimacy of their claims about those measurements and your abilities and limitations, will be much less likely to be questioned by an ALJ. I encouraged you to undergo a FCE, like I do with most people. You can choose to provide them with both FCE testing and have your doc use that info to fill out an RFC form for you.

After your ALJ hearing, the ALJ will set your RFC rating. Your medical documentation, info you and 3rd parties provided about your Daily Activities, and your testimony from the hearing/s will all be used to determine your RFC rating.

By using the answers from various hypothetical limitations posed to the Vocational Expert, and matching that to the decided RFC rating, the ALJ will decide if you are capable of performing any job listed in the D.O.T. The D.O.T. is insanely outdated and proving you can't perform a "job" such as Surviallance System Monitor is another part of the process that is widely misunderstood. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survei...system_monitor

It is much faster and less complicated if an applicant can qualify for SSDI based upon either meeting the requirements of a Listed Impairment or via the Grid Rules.

Regarding your attorney's fees, SS limits the maximum amount they can collect to 6k up until the ALJ level. Once an appeal to the AC is required, the attorney can collect 25% of a beneficiary's backpay and retroactive benefits. (Read the fee agreement/contract you signed. Some attorneys will voluntarily limit their fees to 6k even at the AC level, but that's not common from what I can tell.) So, if you were to receive $100,000 in backpay and retroactive payments after being approved, your attorney would (likely) be entitled to $25,000. If they can help you get approved, it's worth it, IMO, but you need to understand how the fee agreement work and the ramifications of such an agreement.

Money
 

Lit, at this point I could care less about money, I just want to get better, and end this nightmare, I'll be 60 in a few months, my life is nearing it's end. Money will not stop this faze of my life.

Wanting to get better shouldn't have anything to do with your getting older. Or at least, I can't relate to a person that's more interested in SSDI benefits than being as functional and healthy as possible.

And unless you have a terminal illness, you have no way to predict how long you'll live. It's not uncommon for people to live into their 80's and 90's. If you suspect that you have an undiagnosed serious health issue, then you need to go get another opinion and have more testing done.

As you've repeatedly expressed that you would be fine with accepting less backpay if you were to be approved from your 55th birthday, I'm not understanding why neither your current or previous attorney has not done something to address this. You either are not communicating this properly or they're motivated by the possibility of large fees--thus the reason for me taking the time to explain all of this in detail for you.

New attorney
 

My new attorney has already addressed that.