He never said that no lawyer was willing to represent him- just that a claim without a lawyer had little chance. In my case, we applied several times before finally conceding that we needed a lawyer. As it turned out, my father’s skill with paperwork and red tape (he spent 37 years working for the federal government) worked and the lawyer told us my case had finally been approved.
Also in my experience, various other programs (LIHEAP, Foodstamps etc) are just as open to fraud but are MUCH easier to apply for and get.
He actually died shortly after the denial which made the appeal moot.
I do understand the system and why they do what they do and why theoretically the way things are handled really is the best that we can do (or come up with) but looking at it from the other side (the non-administrative side) it really is a big ol’ mess.
Yeah, I read what he wrote. Fact is there were multiple things I disagreed with about his post, but I don’t care to parse it and point out everything I think erroneous. He’s got a deeply seated opinion. That’s fine. I don’t need to convince him otherwise. Or anyone else.
He said - without a shred of evidence - that it’s virtually impossible for an unrepresented claimant to win an SSDI appeal without a self-evident claim (ie., paraplegia, paralysis, loss of higher brain function, etc.)
I disagree with his characterization of the success rate for unrepresented claimants, but of course we would first have to define “virtual impossibility.” In any event, if he considers the problem to be a lack of counsel, then get a lawyer. They’re making thousands more of them every year!
I was approved first time, self applied, no legal representation. My disability, while enough to prevent me from working, is nowhere near as severe(MitzeKatze’s being the most extreme I’ve heard) as those who have been turned down.
Factors I think helped my case:
I applied online, giving where my records were but I didn’t need to supply them myself and the doctors/hospital probably sent everything.(Forklift not included.:D)
I had already been on State Disability(Ca.) for a year(and used it up).
My case was not resolved, there was still uncertainty as to whether I would ever walk, my femur was not healing and an amputation was being discussed.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I am neither disabled nor is anyone in my family. I work in the field. I’ve got plenty of evidence. However, since I can’t cite to it, how’s this?
I’m not sure where I misunderstood you. What in anything I posted suggests I think you or a family member was disabled?
Instead, I think you are extremely imprecise in your use of language. Accepting the 1/3 and 2/3 figures you linked (from a law firm soliciting prospective clients - surely an unimpeachable source! :p), I offer my opinion that a 33% success rate does not impress me as the equivalent to “virtual impossib[ility].” So now you will have to say something about what you called “self-evident claims.”
I have no interest in continuing this exercise with you. And you should certainly feel free to believe whatever you wish.
I should probably clarify a bit on the reasons why my Dad was turned down despite his obvious disabilities, and it is what leads me to conclude that some denials are “nit-picky”. Some of the documentation about his immediate condition was from doctors and a hospital that was not his “primary physician” and his primary physician was unaware of his current diagnosis/condition so collaborating documentation was unavailable. I (choose to) believe it was mostly a matter of bureaucracy and things were not filed on the correct forms or by the correct specialists or worded in the correct way that the SSA was looking for. I am confident that he would have been approved on appeal.
And I have known a few people who have qualified the first time, without representation and for conditions that I personally would not consider to be “worthy” of it…but then I do not make the rules and far be it from me to judge etc. I have no problems with people receiving SSDI, as long as they are not hiding, exaggerating or lying about their conditions or limitations. If everyone plays by the rules, then the rules will work for everyone, ya know?
I will give an example of the blatant SSDI fraud I have seen though. My husband’s EX was diagnosed with bipolar disorder (which vindicated me all the times I said she was mentally ill, but that is another story…) while she was working as an LPN. She learned that this diagnosis can (but won’t always) qualify one for SSDI. So she immediately quit her job, claimed that she couldn’t work and applied for benefits. Her doctor would not provide her the necessary documentation (she was not and is not disabled in any way and her bipolar disorder can be somewhat controlled with medication) so she went to doctor after doctor after doctor until she found one that would. She was approved for SSDI, so stayed not working until she got bored and decided she needed more money to support her shopping habits. She then went back to work as an LPN in the same place she had quit, doing the same job. It took a few months to catch up with her and her benefits were stopped, and to this day she is employed as an LPN with nary a word about being unable to do the job. THAT is the kind of thing I think needs to be controlled and should be reported and investigated. And I know that it is, but it is also a lot to stay on top of so some cases will always slip through the cracks.
A person is certainly able to voluntarily “make themself” disabled. You could take a chainsaw and cut off your limb for example. Short of such drastic steps, an individual can style their life in the manner your acquaintance did, quitting work, seeking sufficient medical documentation, perhaps restricting their activities - thereby manufacturing a record on which they may be found disabled. ISTM, however, that is someone were willing to go to such lengths to received the relatively meagre SS disab bens, that might in itself suggest some type of mental/emotional problem.
IME, cases like you recount are rather rare - especially when you consider them within the context of the 55 million people drawing monthly payments (7 million disabled workers). In 2008, there were 877,000 new awards to disabled workers. Just saying - it is a HUGE system. I’m not sure there are more erroneous decisions based on “fraud,” than erroneous decisions based on keying errors by some clerical person entering data into the system.
Any way, this person went back to work, and her bennies were stopped. So it sounds to me like the system worked. I’ll also note (being hopelessly precise) that the recovery of overpaid bennies does not require a determination of “fraud.”
The stats I have seen for the past 2 decades have consistently shown a very strong correlation between a state’s disability claims and unemployment statistics. When people more lose their jobs, more people apply for disability SS benefits. I find that entirely understandable. I do not think those people are committing “fraud” simply because they may not know that their situation does not qualify them for bennies. Nor do I consider it terrible that not all of those sympathetic individuals will obtain the assistance they desire from SS.
Of course not, it is only the ones who know that they do not qualify and actively seek to falsify documentation and the like (thus commit fraud) that I take issue with.
Had dinner yesterday with someone who deals with benefits calculations, and she told me there are many situations in which someone might receive both DIB and SSI. Just wanted to point that out, as I had questioned that earlier. As I said, I know extremely little about benefits calcs.
As I intended it, each use of the word “you/your” in the sentence you quote could (and perhaps should) be replaced with “a person” or “his/her.” I was not intending “you” to refer to RNATB.
There are some people on SSI and SSDI that work in established “protected” or “safe” jobs. Their disability is taken into account and the employment team is trained to deal with those people on disability.
Goodwill Industries is one of the places that hires/puts to work people with function-able skills.
I know two people who, on the surface, look like they have exactly similar disabilities, with the same cause: auto accident, not their fault, whiplash, and now they have seizures/dizziness. One of them was a nurse, 48 at the time of the disability, and she is on full disability as she can’t use a computer (dizziness), can’t drive, and has short-term memory issues. The other is a geologist, who is not supposed to drive, but does, and who uses a computer even though it makes him dizzy and nauseous.
Both these people feel their disability, general fuzziness, short-term memory lapses, etc. make their conditions obvious to others (the guy feels he could never get another job if he lost it because he thinks he appears so out of it). However, this is not the case–they seem perfectly normal.
The former nurse is on full disability, but she is working as an artist, and actually selling stuff. Is she cheating?
Is she cheating compared to the geologist, who is powering through it?
They both have families, but the geologist has a stay-at-home wife, who used to work but hasn’t for 20 years.
Here’s a curious situation. Consider a blind individual. Blindness is a presumptive disability. If a blind person applies, they are approved. Yet we all know many blind people who work. And if they do, the ADA requires “reasonable accommodations.”
Nothing against blind people whether working or on disab. I just always thought that curious.
I voted live and let live not because I’m tolerant of fraud - I’m not, fraud should be punished as the crime it is - but because it’s too easy to make snap judgments without knowing all the details.
I will say that the approval process can be a nightmare. My husband is going through the wringer on it, and it’s been ugly so far.
Anyhow - I’d like to bring up another point. You are allowed to make a very minimal amount of money while on disability. Very minimal. Basically, you’re too disabled to work a job sufficient to support yourself, but that doesn’t rule out, say, selling an occasional watercolor or some pottery you manage to make on your good days. The rules do allow it.
So, again, if you meet the requirements and follow the rules live and let live - but if you lie, if you deliberately commit fraud, throw the book at you.
Actually, you’re allowed to make quite a lot of money while on SSDI - $12,000 per year as of this year (and over $20,000 per year if you’re blind). Not enough to support yourself, really, but very close to what you’d earn working 36 hours a week at minimum wage.
