Originally Posted by sl1029

Thanks for the replies! The attorney advises that he satisfied our original contract with him....he offered that we were now basically in a blackhole and that he would write a letter for us to SS (for an additional fee) but didn't know if it would be worth it, or what else could be done.

The judge's fully favorable award specifically noted that there were 2 UNSUCCESSFUL trial work periods that were to be covered by the backpay award period....and that he was currently in the midst of another trial work period. He received both backpay and an ongoing award.

We received the letter calculating the ongoing award amount, and it said that the backpay would be sent once they had confirmed that there were no other offsets. But there was nothing specific about SSI, and I understood that to be standard language.

We began receiving the ongoing award, as well as a stimulus check probably 30-60 days later.

We never applied for SSI for him, because of my income and his other resources....but I guess I might as well call and make sure that didn't somehow happen automatically....

What I don't understand is a) why the backpay was held up with no correspondence. Each time we called, we were told it was "processsing." and b) how SSDI staff can re-investigate something a judge has already ruled on.

Since I posted originally, we have confirmation that SSDI is asking for information from his unsuccessful work trial employers about that employment.

How do you get to speak with someone besides the window clerk at the SSDI office? The last time we were there, we asked and were told there was no one else we could speak to....which I knew wasn't true...but other than causing a scene, I didn't know how to get past that.

We are going to have our Senator's office open a constituent casework file on Tuesday...anyone think that will work?

Originally Posted by parlayone

i'm in the same boat as you are they owe me 85,000 in back pay you cannot call the payment center you can fax them only i call ssi once a week they will send over a fax to the payment center for you if you google it you can get the fax number to the payment center good luck what a country

Originally Posted by en bloc

I think legalmania is correct and SS has found the return to work as "substantial income".

I believe there is 9 months of substantial activity (does not have to be consecutive) where income over the "limit" can be made without change to benefits awarded. After that time, they may find you are able to continue work and the benefits will stop.

You said the award was May of 2010. They may be waiting for the 9 months of substantial income to be fulfilled and then plan to change the award.

I'm too new to this forum (but not the medical problems or disability) to post links, but SSA has links about the rules when working and when working changes your benefits.

The lawyer gets paid on the award decision, not whether you keep getting benefits.

I'm glad he was able to return to work.

Originally Posted by legalmania

O.K. I found the answer. The ALJ decision is not the final decision in the agency. I should know this because I've done it.

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0457550060

Originally Posted by legalmania

Hi en bloc, I just read in 2006 there was a change to the law and it is now every 6 months, I'll have to find it. I have to go out but when I get back I'll see if I can find it again. Take care.

Originally Posted by Janke

The link refers to the DRB and it only applies to DSI cases.

DSI is a now largely abandoned process for changing the way disability decisions were made. It was the pet project of the previous Social Security Commissioner.

The DRB may still be active in some parts of the country, I believe the northeast.

But the final decisionmaker in the Social Security Administration is still the Appeals Council, the level above the ALJ. They only reverse a tiny percentage of cases brought before them and they take a year or two to even make that decision. If the Appeals Council does not approve or remand a case back to the ALJ, then the claimant can go outside SSA and file a civil case in a District Court.

The lower level cannot reverse a decision made by a higher level. The payment center cannot change an ALJ award. The payment center or local office can refer a case to their regional office staff if a glaring error or misapplication of law (like granting insured status when there isn't any) was made in the written decision to see if the regional office is willing to bump the case up to the Appeals Council. But that almost never happens. So even if a lower level employee thinks the ALJ made a bad decision, the lower level employee cannot unilaterally change that decision. They don't have the authority.

Originally Posted by legalmania

In being a paralegal for over 12 yrs. and reading hundreds maybe thousands of cases I know this to be false. This is what makes my job so hard. A case can go from the higher tribune and be sent back to the lower tribune. If you read a case that was in the AC you better check and make sure that it wasn't sent back. That happens a lot.

U.S. legal system

In the United States, which uses a common law system in its state courts and to a lesser extent in its federal courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.[5]

When dealing with an agency it's a whole different ballgame.
Introduction to Problem: A private/individual party is affected by an agency action. That party wants a court to review the agency’s action, pursuant to § 706 of the APA. The agency will immediately file a motion to dismiss, claiming that its decision cannot be reviewed under the APA. If the agency action can be reviewed, however, the reviewing court can reach the merits of the party’s claim—that there is something wrong with the agency action.