Lit, can you think of any reason why a hearing is necessary, the appeals Council remand only wants one thing resolved, their doctors words, one says severe, the other says mild to moderate, and now the new CE Examinator says severe. Asking me about my day, or a VE what kind of work can I do is not part of the remand order. Having me drive 130 miles one way, just doesn't make sense. This hearing is not de novo, just one item, to pay my attorney's expenses, my mileage, court reporter, VE, ME, the judge ,sounds like government waste. What's your thoughts?

Darn! I just lost a very long post and I'm too tired to retype now.

My short version is I think you're confused by the AC's decision. They only need to determine there was one legal error in the case in order to remand, they don't have to determine anything else.

I'll try and address some other parts when I'm up to it, or if you want me to call you or if you'd like to call me, send a pm.

Get your rest, it seems we are all depending on you, just curious what questions they will ask me.

Before I forget, since you're over 75 miles away you can request SS to pay for lodging and/or to get a driver or cab, or take a bus or train if you need special accommodations. --If the drive is going to exhaust you, it might be better to get there a day early. You just to have to make the request beforehand and get approval from the judge.

http://www.ssa.gov/appeals/odar_pubs/70-10281.pdf

I'm still holding out hope that there won't be a hearing, I can't believe they need to know what I do everyday after asking me that in 4 hearings already. I'll see if my congressman and attorney can push this along. Like I said, there are a lot of eyes on this case, to deny me this time, would be a tragic injustice, but I'm sure they will try.

You have to look at this hearing as a new opportunity, before a new ALJ, to prove your case. ALJs do review their cases prior to your hearing date and it is possible that you might receive a ruling beforehand, but you can't count on it.

I went back and looked at a few of your earlier posts, and while it is true that they merge your files you really can't count your first application that you let lapse as a part of your timeline.

You said that your attorney amended your Alleged Onset Date. Was this done due to new medical evidence, based upon you turning a certain age, or did you just mean the date allowed by the start of your second application? There is a huge difference between those scenarios.

I think they were just trying to do something to appease these people. What did you mean by first application lapse. Why do you think they sent me for IQ And Memory Scale test? By the way, my scores were very low.

In an earlier post said you applied for SSDI in 2006 when you were 50 and you were denied by the Appeal's Council. Although you filed the paperwork for Federal Court you never responded and let that court case lapse. You then filed a second application in 2008 when you were 52.

In this thread you said your attorney amended your Alleged Onset Date to 2009, which would put your age at 53. Why did your attorney amend the Alleged Onset Date? Did you have more medical evidence at that point? Did you have a decrease of function, or a decline in your health?

Out of curiosity, do you know what your Date Last Insured is? If so, did you turn 55 beforehand? If you're unsure, it's important to figure this out before your hearing.

"I think they were just trying to do something to appease these people." I'm not sure what you mean by that.

"Why do you think they sent me for IQ And Memory Scale test? By the way, my scores were very low." If these tests were also performed in the past, which I believe you stated they were, than perhaps they wanted to compare the results. Without reading your file and knowing the specifics of your case, it's difficult to answer some of these questions, but it is not at all unusual for SS to require applicants to undergo exams or tests when they feel that your medical records are insufficient.

For example, you stated your docs filled out multiple sets of RFC forms for you. Did you undergo Functional Capacity Testing that your docs used as a reference to fill out those RFC forms?

You've listed several ailments contributing to your being disabled. But, the ALJ is going to want to know very specifically what are the limitations caused by each. She is going to want to see evidence that you are actively seeking treatment and are compliant with recommended treatment.

With the issue in this latest test questioning your credibility, I think it is highly unlikely you'll be approved prior to the hearing. The ALJ will very likely use the hearing to try to determine if your testimony is consistent with the record. She could spend three hours with you and thoroughly go through your case file...I would not make the assumption that only one or two questions need to be addressed.

Lit, I don't want to sound overconfident by any means, but I can't think of any reason for denial at this point, to risk having the appeals council look at my case a 4th time because an Examinator felt in her heart that I didn't try my best on a very difficult test, who still believes I have severe depression, I just don't see a honest denial, I see a dishonest, prejudice denial. I have racked my brain to come up with any possible reason, but I just don't see one.

First off, I don't think the Appeal's Council attaches any major significance to the amount of times a case is sent back to them. (Did all four appeals even occur after you filed the second application?) They're not emotionally invested in the process like you are. Most of the time they're not even deciding the merit of a case, they're simply ruling on the application of the law.

I'm just not as convinced as you are that the ALJ will only be concerned with that one issue. It's much safer to be over prepared unnecessarily, than for you to be blind sided at the hearing. The best way for you to prepare is to read through your entire file and read as much as possible about the process. It could include doctors notes or reports you've never seen, btw. Or, it could be missing documents...that is not uncommon.

Having your credibility questioned can make the difference between approval and denial. Read the following two links. The advise there is important for anyone going to an ALJ hearing.

http://www.disabled-world.com/disabi...redibility.php

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...y-hearing.html