Not sure what you think those "clerks" are doing to prevent people from receiving benefits except what the law requires. Now, perhaps you believe the law is too stringent and that decisions should be based on only a treating doctor's opinion that someone is "disabled", and not on a legal definition that attempts to provide parity and equal treatment, albeit falling short. Then there would be even more variance in who is found disabled and who is not, and no doubt there would be unscrupulous doctors who would sign any document, for a price.

I have no doubt that there are many many ways to simplify the disability process and make it easy for anyone to get approved. But there does have to be some fiscal responsibility as well; this is not a bottomless pit of money. And lots of people who apply for disability benefits are just not that sick or injured, but they get the same evaluation that the seriously ill and injured cases get because that is due process.

And it is really hard to compare conditions and decide that someone is disabled. Is a deaf person more or less disabled than a spinal cord injury victim; is a Down Syndrome adult more or less disabled than a person with cancer who has to undergo 6 months of treatment and then can go back to work? Having a standardized definition makes the process the same across the board. Of course there are local differences. Residents of Alaska have more snow plows and 4 wheel drive cars than residents of Florida who have many beach chairs and towels. There will always be the human (employee) factor in determining disability.

I did a quick google check for official sources of Social Security data and didn't find any hard data that I could quote here. There are other web sites with anecdotal statistics that don't come anywhere near the assertion that 95% of initial decisions are denied and 95% of hearings with attorneys are approved. So, either that area mentioned is an anomoly with that percentage, or the knowledgeable source quoted (the anonymous top attorney) is not as knowledgeable as purported.

But again, I am not providing any facts to back me up, so what I am saying is also not worth the pixels on the screen.

In your research of the SSA website did you look at & study the SSA definition of disability? Just because you cannot perform your work as an organist does not mean you cannot perform ANY type of work. In determining that you do/do not have a medical condition so severe that it is expected to result in death, or be so severe that it has lasted, or is expected to last 12 months and prevent ANY type of work the disability determinations office will look at your age, education, past work experience and overall medical condition.

There is an expectation that you would not have surgery if you did not expect it to improve your ability to function. A determination will probably not be made until the effectiveness of the surgery can be assessed. If you are under 50, have a high school diploma and past work experience back/neck problems are seldom considered disabling enough to meet SSA standards.

Diabetes type II is usually not disabling but your case may be different. What caused the stroke? Was it the diabetes? What are the residuals? Can you walk/talk, etc, or are you paralyzed on one side? How bad is the neuropathy? Can you walk, feel your feet, etc.? How does the polycethemia vera affect your ability to breath, how severe is the dizziness & how do these conditions affect your ability to function.

Statements from your treating doctors identifying each condition with treating documentation as to how the conditions affect your ability to function will be most helpful.

Information documenting a medically diagnosed condition & how that condition affects the ability to perform work related functions will not be overwhelming.