A fully favorable is when the judge agrees with your onset date, does not matter if it is changed or not. A partially favorable is when the judge agrees you are disabled but does not believe you are disabled as long as you state you are. For example, say you broke you arm in June 2009 and in October 09 you have to have surgery and during surgery you suffer a disabling stroke. The judge will say that you could still work even with a broken arm so they give you a PF decision starting October 09 and not June 09.

If you refuse to change your onset date in this example and you receive a PF decision then it can be appeal but at the risk of losing everything, like the website says. However, if the judge states that he'll give you an otr decision in your favor if you change the onset date then you can't go back and say I made a mistake. Is that clearer?

The reason the judges will ask you to change it instead of doing a PF decision is because once you bite that apple it is over and they won't have to worry about it biting them in the derriere later on. It is pretty much like a plea bargain. This way they get to have a very high success rate and save taxpayers some money while you get your benefits almost immediately and a piece of mind.

By the way, the ALJ wanted me to give up 2yrs of backpay and medicare eligibility. I told my lawyer I rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty nail. I got a FF.

Cherry, I provided examples where it appears different ALJs are writing their decisions as FF or PF for similar circumstances.

So, no, your post really doesn't clear things up, although I am clear what your opinion is, just as I was with your previous post. If what you're expressing is more than just your personal experience, and if there are rules, regulations, or rulings above the ALJ level that you are familiar with, then linkage would be greatly appreciated.

I just read on a s.s.d. website that s.s. changed the rule about if you get denied at your hearing, you cannot appeal it and start a new case for the same disabilities. You have to decide to do one or the other. I think the site said it was changed in July 2011.

I read what was on the links that were provided and I gave direct examples. I am just stating what was explained to me by my lawyer. I have NEVER heard of taking the "settlement" and it not be final. That would deceive the point. It is like saying you want a steak, then eat all of it, pay the bill and go home, then the next day say you should of had fish and try to get your money back, it's INSANE. Most people have the common sense, without needing references, to know that a settlement is final and that is exactly what this is.

Sure, you could try to overturn it but you will sound crazy for saying you got what you wanted. Remember the saying, "Be careful for what you wish for, because you just might get it."

I'm sorry, but common sense does not equate with legal veracity in this country, and the laws pertaining to SSD are no exception. Having gone through both an appeal and an ALJ hearing pro se, that was something I learned immediately.

If you're going to state something as if it is a legal fact, then it is not unreasonable for someone to ask if you have an actual legal reference to back it up. If you're simply voicing your opinion or relaying a personal legal experience, then qualify your responses so that you don't accidently give out erroneous legal advice.

The link I provided for ssdanswers.com shows an example of an ALJ hearing where the attorney used the amended onset date as a strategy for an easier approval since the standard is lower when an applicant turns 50 (or 55). The ALJ later (neither the OP or my examples were OTR decisions) sent a PF decision. In that instance, the applicant preserved her legal right to appeal the ALJ decision. Whether it made "sense" in her case to exercise that right is not the point.

You stated, "If you change your onset date to get a favorable decision from the ALJ then you lose your right to appeal it." It appears that it is at the discretion of the ALJ how they write the decision. So an accurate statement would be, "If you change your onset date to get a favorable decision from the ALJ then you MIGHT lose your right to appeal it."

You then stated, "Like Janke has stated, the ALJ is acting like a prosecuter with him being the judge, trial, and jury."

Actually what Jank said was, "This is not like a plea bargain on a criminal case." "The ALJ is the arbiter. He/she only has to agree with himself or herself."

Comparing the process to a civil matter and calling it a "settlement" doesn't improve the analogy.

Most will not play chicken with an ALJ over ongoing benefits to secure backpay, like you did. And, most people will probably not appeal PF decisions with amended onset dates. BUT, our personal opinions don't really matter. The applicant's legal rights, including their right to appeal, are what matters.


If anyone can identify any nuances that make an amended onset date binding, that would be very helpful information.

Wow! Good for you Cherry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello. My hearing went something like yours. The judge asked me to amend my onset date also. I agreed but the VE never testified. The judge asked me my address, and my name, and if agreed with in other words a deal. Asked about my meds. So Im in the same boat as you. Im waiting too. Hope yours goes the way you want. Good luck.