Welcome! This site is written for Social Security disability claimants, for their legal representatives, and for the network of people involved in the Social Security disability claim process. I hope you find it helpful.
Free Claim Review

In a recent blog post, attorney Charles Hall asked Why The Differences Between DDS And ALJs?  Mr. Hall's post discussed an Office of Inspector General report which addressed the issue of differing allowance rates among the ALJs and the various state DDS agencies. The OIG report is definitely worth a look (link opens a pdf).

Former disability examiner Tim Moore answers a similar question in this post: Does Social Security Deny Strong Disability Claims? Mr. Moore concludes that yes, Social Security denies strong claims, particularly at the DDS level. Mr. Moore states:

Disability examiners really do not give proper weight and consideration to the statements provided by a claimant's treating physician when such statements have been obtained or delivered. 

I agree, and have written before that the DDS agencies do not give proper weight to treating physician opinions (See DDS and Examining/Treating Physicians' Opinions). In my view, a principal reason why so many claims denied by DDS are granted at the hearing level is the failure of DDS to follow Social Security regulations and rulings, particularly the "treating physician rule" embodied in 20 CFR 404.1527 and Social Security Ruling 96-2p. I still do not understand it.

The lesson for claimants is keep your claim alive so that it gets to a hearing. If you have a Social Security disability or SSI claim, remember these three things:

  • don't get discouraged if your claim is denied after your initial application or Reconsideration. Your claim may well be granted at the hearing level.
  • Be sure to appeal your denial within 60 days. 
  • If you haven't already, get some legal help for your claim. When the next step is a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge, you do not want to be unrepresented at the hearing.

Here are links to recent notable posts from the Social Security disability blogs: 

I am pleased to announce that attorney Collette Cushing has joined my disability practice. Like me, Collette practices exclusively in the area of Social Security disability. Collette has prepared and conducted hundreds of Social Security hearings in Maine and New Hampshire. She will be involved with all aspects of the practice. 

Collette Cushing attended Bowdoin College, where she majored in biology and government and played varsity tennis. Collette attended the University of Maine School of Law. In law school, Collette was on the Dean’s List and participated in the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic. Collette Cushing is a member of the Maine Bar, and is admitted to the U.S. District Court, District of Maine.

Collette will do the same work that I do. She will meet with clients, prepare cases for hearings, write hearing briefs and on the record requests, and conduct disability hearings in Maine and New Hampshire. 

 

I will be the first to say that I am not a fan the “national” social security claimant representative firms. I think claimants are often not well served by such firms, and many claimants do not realize that the “advocates” they hire are not necessarily attorneys.

I have written about these topics before. See Home Field Advantage and A “national” firm representing Social Security disability claimants has a lot of problems.

My reservations about the national firms are based mostly upon the client experience. In most cases, these clients do not meet their representative in person until just before the hearing. I have been at the hearing office when such clients were waiting for their hearing and waiting to meet their advocate for the first time. Here is what Charles Hall says about the importance of meeting face to face with the client:

<p

I am of the strong opinion that eliminating face to face contact before the hearing reduces the effectiveness of representation. There are some things that cannot be done well over the telephone. As an example, gauging the severity of mental illness and persuading a mentally ill individual to get under psychiatric care are much less difficult to do in person. However, I must admit that there are plenty of attorneys who are not trying to operate nationally who meet with their Social Security clients for the first time on the day of the hearing. I think this is wrong on many levels.

I certainly agree that meeting the client for the first time just before the hearing is not an ideal practice, to say the least. But hold on. Now Binder & Binder has sued the Social Security Administration in federal court to force the SSA to allow Binder to conduct three way video hearings. A 3-way hearing means that the judge is in one place, the client is in a second place, and the claimant’s representative would be in a third place. Under this scenario, the advocate will never need to meet the client at all! You can see a copy of the Binder & Binder complaint on the Social Security Perspectives blog.

Not only would three way video reduce travel costs, but it would also reduce the number of representatives needed to handle a given case load (thus further reducing costs). It pretty much takes all day for a representative to fly to Portland, Maine, conduct a hearing, and return home. But with three way video, that representative could conduct several hearings a day from the office.

In my opinion, three way video would be a poor substitute for in person representation. I have seen commentary about this proposal, and some have said that a national firm is entitled to maximize its profit. Perhaps. But our clients are disabled, and they have been out of work, in many cases, for two or more years waiting for a hearing. They deserve better than a three way video hearing to determine entitlement to Social Security disability benefits.

Here is a selection of recent posts from the Social Security disability blogs:

I can hardly believe that this week we will be 3/4 through the year 2010. It has been quite a year for me so far, and my baby daughter Bridget is now 5 months old.

Here are is a selection of the best articles from this site for the past three months, in case you missed them the first time around:

I had the privilege of presenting a workshop at the Fall Conference for the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives (NOSSCR) in Chicago.

The workshop was Ten Tips for Writing Effective Hearing Briefs for the ALJ. My presentation also included Ten Reasons to Write a Hearing Brief and a sample hearing brief.

Presenting at the NOSSCR conference was a terrific experience. Thank you to all who attended. The linked Ten Tips contains a few updates that were discussed during the workshop, but were not included in the printed conference materials.

Seventh Circuit Judge David Hamilton, the first judicial appointment of President Obama, addressed the full NOSSCR Conference on Thursday morning. 

Judge Hamilton stated that empathy is essential to good judging and good lawyering. Judge Hamilton stated that finding facts fairly, and applying the law to those facts, requires empathy. As an example, the judge recently wrote the opinion in Holmstrom v. Metropolitan Life. That opinion starts with this sentence: "This case illustrates the difficult problems presented by claims for disability insurance by people with serious and painful conditions that do not have objectively measurable symptoms."

Judge Hamilton was a U.S. district court judge for 15 years, and he offered some practical tips for federal court appeals of Social Security claims:

  • When in federal court, pick fewer arguments and develop them fully. 
  • Remember that your federal district court judges are generalists, and not Social Security specialists. 
  • Don’t just quote a precedent for helpful language. Look at cases with similar facts and how they were disposed.  
  • Remember harmless error. 
  • As a judge, he looks at the prior work record, and finds an excellent prior work record to be persuasive evidence in a disability case. 
  • If possible, find efforts of the claimant to "work through the pain," which is also compelling evidence in a disability case. 
  • Point out “the dog that doesn’t bark,” the absence of negative evidence.
  • A doctor’s general statement that claimant is “doing well” must be examined in context. That statement does not mean that the claimant can sustain employment. That general statement in the claimant's progress notes is not inconsistent with the doctor’s specific opinions in his medical source statement(s). 
  • Consider adding key documents to your appendix in federal court briefs, such an important report from a doctor or a short excerpt of claimant’s testimony (I will definitely do that next time I go to district court).

The Eileen P. Sweeney Distinguished Service Award was presented this morning at the NOSSCR Fall Conference by Troy Rosasco, Esq.

The recipients of the award are Charles Hall, Esq. and David Travers, Esq. It is a well deserved honor for each. 

In addition to many other accomplishments, both of these gentlemen have published books on Social Security disability law and have prominent sites on the web addressing Social Security topics. Mr. Hall publishes the blog Social Security News. Mr. Travers hosts the Connect Forum.

I will be attending the Fall NOSSCR Conference in Chicago this week. I will arrive on Wednesday and will be leaving Saturday morning. If you will be at the conference, please say hello. 

I will be presenting a workshop on Friday at 9:45 AM entitled "Ten Tips for Writing Effective Hearing Briefs for the ALJ". It should be pretty good. Please attend the workshop, and say hello afterwards.

For those who cannot make the conference, I will try to post updates so that you can follow the conference from afar.