Janke, I am not sure why this is still being questioned this way.

the member clearly says he was turned down in march of 06

that is generally understood as March 2006

the aim here is to try to help the member.

Chemar,

I believe Janke is questioning it because in the second post OP said March of 06, because OP's original post says "I hade a case I opened on march 6th"

OP doesn't state when the hospitalization was, when the denial was, and when the deteriorazation of the condition was.

OP, if you clarify the timeline for us, we might be able to give you a more direct answer. More info about the change in your condition between the dates is also very important.

It sounds like, if you just got your approval and the original claim was from March 2006, it might be too late (over the 4 years). It might make a difference when you reapplied. I don't know if it does ot not, I just remember Janke's reference to the magic 4 year cut off.....I don't know if that's 4 years from March 2006 to the date you reapplied or 4 years to the date you were 'approved as of.'

First post did say March 6th. Later post did say March of 06. Didn't want to give bad information because of misundertanding of which date he meant.

He also said he just won his case and has paper from the judge so it seems the onset date and decision to reopen should be included in the written decision.

The OP hasn't actually received the paperwork, so until then...

the aim is to help people here, and so if one doesnt understand what they are asking, or needs clarity on what they have said, it doesnt take much effort to ask for clarification in a pleasant and helpful way

most people who come on here are already stressed and ill, and we do not want to add to that, but rather to offer them advice and comfort.

the response to this member seemed more like an interrogation and that can be intimidating

people giving help here is much appreciated, but we do ask that the tone is in keeping with our mission here as *support groups*

thanks

It does seem that I am creating discord on this board. Not my intent. I just have always thought that correct information was more helpful than speculation and empathy and it's hard to give valid and correct information to some posters because so many facts are missing or unclear.

I will work on writing friendlier posts or just staying in the background and saying nothing or very little when the poster confuses me.

I'm part of the Janke fanclub, if that's any consolation

You are one of the most knowledgable posters here regarding SSDI and we need correct information

Janke, when I first starting reading this forum, your posts really distressed me -- I was very fragile -- and they seemed very blunt -- almost to the point of attacking, sometimes. I really thought that you felt we were all "losers" who were trying to figure out ways to commit fraud agains the SS system. But, your posts for the past several months have seemed to be compassionate -- not "touchy-feely", "hand holding", "give somebody a hanky" -- but, giving people the information they need so that they can regain a semblance of "normalcy".

I suspect that you either work for OR have worked for the SS administration and have heard AND answered most of these questions a MILLION times. Like a mother or a teacher, repeating the answer ONE more time sometimes gets on one's nerves (I was a teacher for 28 years ) -- but, it helped me to remember that although I was repeating the answer for the 57th time THAT day, little Susie was hearing it for the FIRST.

Janke, you are a SAINT for taking the TIME to give us ALL the info -- and, now, I'm another member of your fanclub!

I agree. Janke has always given straight forward answers with the information necessary to back them up. Her knowledge is an asset to this forum.

Thanks. Geez, a fan club?

People need both good information and hand holding. I'll continue to work on the good information side of the SSA forums and hold hands at the forums where I dump my problems.

Pleading the fifth about where I have worked.