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.