Originally Posted by LIT LOVE

On the Record.

Ray's attorney wrote a request outlining why he felt his client should receive a Fully Favorable decision, without the need for his already scheduled ALJ hearing.

An ALJ must reach a Fully Favorable decision in order to grant an OTR request. This means the ALJ must also agree with the claimant's Alleged Onset Date. It is common for ALJs to choose a later date to approve benefits than the AOD. (ALJs will often negotiate a later onset date at the hearing. They'll agree to a favorable ruling if a claimant will amend their AOD. This allows the ALJ to reduce back pay AND still issue A Fully Favorable decision--negating the claimant's ability to appeal the decision. The ALJ has the power to choose whatever date they want, but if the claimant does not amend their AOD, than the decision is considered a Partially Favorable Decision and can be appealled.) The date chosen by the ALJ is called the Established Onset Date. It can be concur with the claimant turning a significant age like 50 or 55, or it can reflect the date of a medical event--such as the date someone suffers a stroke for example, or it can reflect when significant medical evidence is documented by a new treating source.

Attorneys are generally cautious about only writing OTRs for cases with overwhelming evidence, to protect their reputations. Even still, it's apparently not all that common to be successful--in part because SS is already having adjudicators evaluating cases to determine if evidence is strong enough to reach a Fully Favorable decision without the need for a hearing, just before the ALJ changes the case status as ready to schedule for the ALJ hearing.

Originally Posted by Rayandnay

Nice explanation Lit!

Originally Posted by echoes long ago

i agreed to an amended onset date. lost 7 months. the reason for the amended onset date was a positive nerve conduction study for peripheral neuropathy. what i find ironic about the amended onset date is that the test confirmed that i had peripheral neuropathy on that date but the degree of the nerve damage that was found showed that i had had significant nerve damage for quite a while before that test. the damage doesnt just happen overnight. and i was removed from my job by my employer 17 months before the test because i was not physically able to do it anymore. But sometimes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If I didnt accept the amended onset date and appealed then i was exposing myself to the possibility that i could lose altogether.