Same old SSDI scare.......
 

Every year, you read the same story. Only the projected year changes. Gets worse around election time


CLICKY CLICK--> Social Security disability fund projected to run dry in 2016 *sigh* :rolleyes:



:hug:

I won't be shocked if reforms come at some point. I tend to think they'll push to eliminate the GRID Rules, rather than decreasing benefits for current beneficiaries.

Eliminating
 

They could save a lot of money by eliminating the first two phases of disability, and going straight to hearing, very few if anyone wins. It's pretty much a rubber stamp process at that point, and fire underachieving ALJs.

That's just not true. 1/3 of applicants are approved at the first stage.

You're also not considering the fact that the work done developing the case file prior to the hearing is necessary for the ALJs to make their determinations.

Thanks Lit Love, that is so true.

The reconsideration step has been eliminated in some states and puts more burden upon and backlogs ALJ's.

Some cases could have been decided at the reconsideration phase but go straight from initial denial to an ALJ in areas where this step has been eliminated. This adds to the workload of the ALJ's.

I would be curious to know why this step was eliminated in some areas and not others.

Rubber Stamp ???
 

In my opinion, the SSDI process is anything BUT rubber stamp. I see NO rubber stamp in ANY steps in the process. Each and every case is decided upon its merits and individually.

If outlier ALJ's were to be terminated, the ones that are approving too a high percentage of applicants would also be fired, not just the ones that have a low approval rating.

Alaska or Montana
 

Check out Alaska or Montana, you may think differently. There's a judge in Montana with a zero percent approval rating.

How many cases has s/he disposed of? Can you provide a link?

These statistics show the lowest ALJ approval rating in Montana was 22% and the ALJ only disposed of 18 cases, in 2013.

http://www.ssdfacts.com/montana

Montana
 

Zero DENIALS
 

I did check out your Montana judge.

Judge Opp had NO denials. NO dismissals. NO approvals.

Obviously, he handled NO cases during the time frame of the statistics listed.

Did you read the stats?
 

Your link shows that the Judge to whom you elude with a zero "approval" rate, also had a ZERO denial rate, and a zero dismissal rate.

In addition to the ALJ Hopeless mentioned, the 2nd ALJ with 0 approvals, Judge Catanese, had only 6 cases which is statistically insignificant and the year prior had nearly a 45% approval rating out of 162 cases.

"For the 2015 *fiscal year, Judge Louis M Catanese has disposed 6 cases at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) in Billings, Montana. Out of those 6 dispostions, 2 were dismissed, 0 were approved and 4 were denied. This means that the percentage of dispositions that Judge Catanese has approved in Billings for the 2015 fiscal year is 0%. The information below for Judge Louis M Catanese was last updated on 6/19/2015."

http://www.disabilityjudges.com/stat...uis-m-catanese

I truly do not understand the continual energy you expend trying to prove how unfair the system is. Are their instances of ALJs with low approval ratings? YES. But for every ALJ with very low approvals, there is often an ALJ with a record that appears too high as well.

More importantly, how in the world will ALJ ratings from Alaska effect you exactly?

and on that note......

hmmm
 

i dont know if anyone will belive it (i dont) paul ryan said the other day that cuts wont happen.

I'm trying to help you. I've been trying to help you for months.

Perhaps someone else would be more of a help to you at this point.

awww
 

be patient. we all have our worries, im table today, yesterday i was close to being baker acted again. its easy when you have an award, people that dont and waiting its a living hell

usually you dont get multiple responses because people dont know the answer to your questions.....not too many people have been to the appeals council and remanded back as many times as you have, if at all.

Approval rates
 

Just because an ALJ has a certain approval rating doesn't mean that they are unfair.

If an ALJ approves 15% of the cases that came before him, does that mean that those cases were approved unfairly?

What if you were one of those 15% cases that gets approved? Is that unfair?

And what if you were assigned to an ALJ with a 97% approval rating and got denied by that ALJ? Would you still claim the ALJ was unfair?

No governmental system is perfect but be glad that you have had the opportunity for appeals. What if the system was setup in a manner where the initial decision was the ONLY chance one had to present their claim for benefits? What if that was the end of it completely? Just DENIED, end of discussion.

Sure, mistakes "can" be made and some people are denied that may be eligible and some approved that may not be deserving but the system at least gives someone several opportunities to show their eligibility for benefit approval.

Denials are not based on whim. The ALJ states the reasons for denial. Focus on correcting the areas in which you have failed to prove your case, not on your anger at the system.

Off track
 

Hi Mz Migraine,

Sorry the subject matter changed during your thread. I did not mean to perpetuate the change of topic from your original subject matter.

Had I understood this was all for your amusement, I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time.

Your post from 1-17-2013
"If you get a chance, google NY Times January 11,2013 article on possible lawsuit settlement against bias aljs, because I think this has changed the landscape on being a mean judge who rules with a iron fist and rules not on facts right in front of him, but decides because he personally does not like or believe that person. Finally the little guy has a forum, it may take some time, a lawsuit, but now we have more than just Appeals Council to check their own people, plus Congress is wondering how one judge can approve 75 per cent versus the other guys 40 per cent. You better have your i"s dotted and T"s crossed."
*

And what was the outcome of the Queens Case? The settlement was those cases were remanded. That's it.

Seems this thread is creating some tension, and going off topic..

Please report any problematic posts.

bumping up to get back on topic of this thread... thank you