Dr.claimed meds helped me
 

I ordered my transcript from my hearing & I see the Dr. who testified for me said the medication he prescribed for me helped me. Wouldn't this be a reason someone would be denied as I was? I would personally think so. There's other things I also see, but I'm too depressed after reading it to mention them now. No wonder I was denied!

I guess this is trivial other info, but I was amazed to see in the transcript the Dr's name rhymed with what his real name is, and the lawyers name isn't even close to what it really is. Can't they get better typist?

The reason I didn't answer previously, is because it is inappropriate to guess with partial info why you were denied. Even reading the denial letter isn't always enough, a recording of the actual hearing is a good thing to have as well. Can you have a positive response to one med and be turned down because of it? Maybe. Can you have a positive response and still be approved? Yes.

It is a complex medical/legal evaluation.

If you don't have an attorney, you should probably get one. Or, a non attorney SSI/SSDI representative (usually former SS employees.) You can also contact an advocacy group (often their services are free.)

I spoke with a cousin recently that is going through the process, and it was so frustrating, because he should be approved for physical and psych issues, and he doesn't know what he's doing and made things so much harder on himself. I offered to help him, but he is one of those people that most needs it but won't take it...

Your exact questions: Could the fact that the doctor said medication helped you be a reason that you were denied?

My best answer. Possibly. But it is the total medical evidence that is evaluated so that is one factor. May or may not be the factor that pushed the decision to a denial.

Your second question: Can't they get better typists?

My best answer. There are no employees hired just as typists in the electronic era. All staff members have to know how to type in order to do their job since it is all computerized. I guess some ALJ's or some attorneys or some decision writers do not proof their work as closely as others, and spell checkers don't have first names and surnames in their data base.

Hi Halo,

I agree with LL and Janke. You can't jump to the conclusion that issue was the clincher or if it had any impact.

Trying to demonstrate the point that having "a prescribed medication help you" doesn't mean that you are or are not disabled, I'll use the example of "me."

I have TOS and RSD, complicated by fibro,occipital neuralgia, djd, depression, bursitis, and tendonitis. Severe pain is my biggest complaint. Cymbalta and Neurontin take the edge off my pain slightly. Narcotics help considerably. My doctor should be documenting whether these medications help me or not. If they aren't helping, I shouldn't still be on them. If they are helping, that is a necessary part of my medical record. The fact that these meds help me doesn't mean that I'm cured. The pills make it so that I don't have to spend 16 hours a day with an icepack. The pills make it so that I can stand or walk around a bit and not have to be laying down or sitting in a specific chair 24/7. The pills don't make me so functional that I can do household chores daily, or even bathe and dress everyday. I still have limits with my activity tolerance. My meds make me feel even more dizzy/lightheaded/difficulty concentrating than I do without meds. That beats severe pain, but it doesn't make me able to do SGA. My medications help me; they do not make me un-disabled.

Does that make sense ?