I had a hearing 1-23-15, denial letter 2-27-15, appeals council remand 5-30-15, does anyone think this is fast? By the way, this is my 3rd remand.

You've attempted to expedite the process, and it's obviously worked. This is really the only thing that intervention by your local senator or congress person's office can achieve.

My new lawyer applied for Otr, at this point a hearing would be pointless.

In your opinion a hearing is not needed, but that may not be an ALJ's opinion.

OTR's are very rarely granted. They must be Fully Favorable decisions--in other words, if the ALJ thinks you should qualify but feels a later Established Onset Date is appropriate (such as when you turned 55) he can't approve your OTR.

They're also usually only granted for those that qualify by meeting a Listed Impairment. Unless you have new medical documentation that proves you met the requirements for an Impaired Listing going back to your Alleged Onset Date, then you will most likely have to go through yet another ALJ hearing.

If the AC felt a hearing was not needed, they also could have granted you a Fully Favorable decision.

IMO, having a chance for a new ALJ hearing, before a new ALJ, is an excellent opportunity.

All they have to say is amend onset date, and we'll jump on it, to have a hearing and ask me the same questions they asked at the previous 5 hearings is nonsensical. I've already concluded, either my answers will be short or I'm going to try and get out of being there. The appeals council one directive is the treating physcians rule, you don't need a hearing to conclude that matter, unless it's more personal than business.

It is SS policy that an OTR decision must be Fully Favorable. The process simply does not work the way you want it to.

If the AC ruling doesn't include the language "de novo", than your hearing might be quite brief and limited to the issue the AC has found that needs to be addressed. While this might be your preference, it will limit your attorney's ability to prove that you qualify for SSDI.