Uh - no. No agency attorneys at ALJ hearings. Period - stop. There are many attorneys working in each hearing office, but there is no provision for them to play any role in the hearings.
I’d suspect Iggy is less than clear as to what happened. An ALJ hrg is certainly not a “court case.” So perhaps he appealed an unfavorable ALJ decision to district court, at which the judge violated all kinds of ethical guidelines by not recusing himself.
Wouldn’t he have to exhaust SSA’s internal appeals process in order to have a final order (before appealing to the district court)?
Sure it does, for your analogy anyway. Both people were injured and suffered something that you acknowledge changed their method of being able to work. (Back Injury)
If the lawyer was put out of work specifically for this injury, as was the guy who could no longer do the manual labor then I’d say he would qualify. This is clearly not the case though.
What was posited earlier was that the trend of unemployment closely follows spikes in disability claims.
They should not correlate at all.
If you are unemployable due to injury or condition-----Bingo Disability
If you are unemployable because you have no job skills----Not Disability (maybe unemployment)
That was my position and there were some folks claiming that they should be the same, were you as well?
If you are unemployable because you are unemployable due to a combination of medical and vocational factors, yes. If you have no job skills and there’s nothing medically wrong with you, of course not.
In most states initial application, reconsideration, ALJ hearing, AC review - then district court.
In some states there is no reconsideration level.
I’ve seen - I can’t begin to guess at how many thousands of these cases over the past quarter century, and cannot think of an instance in which SSA is represented by an attorney at any stage before district court. Maybe I just missed something. 
If we want to get all complicated, we can talk about hearing officers in cessation cases and the like - but in none of them is an attorney representing the government in a matter before an ALJ or other decision-maker.
The ALJ is charged with ensuring that the record is fully and fairly developed - whether or not the clamant is represented. Generally, that means ensuring that relevant medical records have been obtained. It does not mean that the ALJ is required to send a claimant out for additional testing in every case. Different ALJs differ as to what they deem necessary.
In our office, just about every claimant - whether represented or not - has had consultative examinations by a doctor (and a mential health professional if mental impairment is alleged.) It is also common for specialized testing to be obtained, such as an EKG in a heart case, or pulmonary function testing if COPD is an issue. The entire record is generally reviewed by physical and mental health doctors at the initial and reconsideration levels. Unfortunately, in some areas this review is performed by non-doctors called single decision-makers.
The initial and recon levels are handled by the individual states. Unfortunately, some states seem to do a better job than others at this level.
One thing a lot of folk lose track of is that “In general, you have to prove to us that you are blind or disabled. Therefore, you must bring to our attention everything that shows you are blind or disabled. This means that you must furnish medical and other evidence that we can use to reach conclusions about your medical mpairment(s) and … its effect on your ability to work on a sustained basis.” 20 CFR 404.1512(a).
Moreover, “[S]tatements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that you have a medically determinable impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged… .” 20 CFR 404.1529(a).
In short, the claimant bears the burden of proving disability, and disability CANNOT be estabished by subjective allegations lacking sufficient medical support. It should come as no surprise that many initial applications are denied, or that more represented claimants are paid, because many folk apply with few if any medical records. In fact, my understanding is that many if not most attorneys advise their claimants to apply, and only represent them when a hearing is pending. At that time, a good attorney puts forth the effort to obtain any relevant medical evidence, and may even send the claimant out for testing or may solicit medical opinions.
I forget that the procedures vary by state. In Florida there are always field attorneys at the ALJ hearings, AFAIK.
If that is the case, that greatly surprises me. I have never heard of any such thing (tho I try to focus on what I personally NEED to know, and ignore just about everything that does not directly affect my job.)
The only thing I could imagine would be if that is some sort of pilot program. I have been aware of many different calls recently for there to be agency representation at the Agency level. Just this week some huge independent study of the hearing process was released, and there was another one just last month. Tho I have been aware of these discussions, nowhere have I heard that this is actually being done. (Nor do I feel such representation is needed or would be worth the expense.)
If anything, it would be the other way around. I haven’t been to a hearing in like 4 years.
Heck, I haven’t been to one in 40 minutes!
Listen, I think we can all recognize the differences between the two situations, and that the standard you suggest are certainly logical in many senses. But, there are three issues with what you suggest that are problematic to me.
First, the disability program receives money and public support on the basis that we are supporting people that are truly mentally or physically disabled. In a democratic society, we should be able to decide whether or not such a program is worth funding based on standards that are clear, and known to everyone. When disability is basically filling in for welfare, I have to think that most people would be more reticent to see the money used in such a manner.
Second, how many 60-year-old people do you see doing manual labor? Virtually none. Know and elderly construction workers? The reality is that nearly 100% of people doing that work now will not be able to work in that capacity as effectively as their employer would like until the standard retirement age. Since that is the case, we are basically using SSDI as a stop gap until SS payments kick in an 62 or 65. That’s the most charitable way to look at the issue. Now, there are legitimate reasons to provide payments for people in those situations, but there are few that necessitate justifying said payments by treating these people as if they are actually disabled (as most understand it).
Third, the number of jobs a semi-literate with no HS education is “qualified” to perform is shrinking by the day. Hello, the number of middle class jobs available to non college graduates is shrinking. Since it seems as if we are still continuing to produce these people who are unable to compete in the modern economy, we need to have a much better plan besides just paying them to sit around. Pay them to go to school, or to hang out with old people to keep them company, or to digitize medical records; I don’t really care. The fact is that there is far too much work to be done in this country that isn’t getting done because of a lack of resources, yet we are paying relatively able-bodied people to do nothing because they didn’t bother to gain any job skills or education when they had the opportunity. I am not for being cruel to people because they cannot provide for themselves, but I am legitimately worried that we don’t have an effective plan for all the people that are made technologically obsolete by our evolving economy.
Ah, the old dismiss instead of debate. Usual fare for those on your side. But, hey, if that’s the best you can do, that’s the best you can do.
FYI - open letter from past SS Commissioners. Suffice it to say I do not disagree with the views expressed in this letter. :rolleyes:
I’ve read of a few cases in which the beneficiary was trying to ease back into productive employment, only to have the SSA demand the return of many months worth of “overpayments”. The rationale is apparently that the beneficiary’s condition had been improving over that time, so he/she should have been receiving less money each month. Or no money.
I can’t imagine a stronger disincentive against trying to turn one’s life around.
Hmm. These few cases of which you’ve read are vastly different from the thousands of cases I’ve been involved with over the past quarter century. The earnings guides and trial work provisions are quite clearcut. No one should have any difficulty if they ask upfront about the implications of earnings and work activity on their continued benefits.
I’ve never seen an overpayment case that involved an individual who was trying to “ease themselves back into productive employment.” But it is a big program. I wouldn’t be surprised if that actually happened somewhere at some time. But it certainly is not representative of the cases I’ve personally handled. Nor have I heard of any such cases from my colleagues. And the Agency certainly does make mistakes - which can be terribly inconvenient, but IME ultimately generally get corrected.
Far more common is a person who tries to work part-time, getting as close as possible to the maximum allowable earnings while remaining eligible for disability (just over $1000 a month). Then they miscalculate, and exceed the permissable earnings. IMO, in most of these cases the claimant is working the hours they are - not to ease back in to employment, but because their employer will not offer fulltime work with benefits. Another common situation has the person paid cash. They don’t tell SSA, and thins SSA won’t learn of it when they file for their self employment earned income credit refund. Not to mention the geniuses who don’t bother working, but simply claim self employment income to obtain the tax refund. :smack: Not at all uncommon.
And this gradual “improvement” standard you suppose is not reflected anywhere in the Social Security Act or regulations. You are either disabled or you aren’t. There is no sliding scale for partial benefits in cases of improvement or deterioration.
A tenement!?! Royalty!! My grandparents lived in a BOX!! And it only had three sides! My uncle as a young boy had to hold up the other side so the rest could live in it!!
Luxury.
I’m not sure why you decouple “the economy” from disability costs. About $1.5 trillion or about 40% of the Federal budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and those costs are rising. That’s a huge economic impact.
I believe there are far more opportunities in the skilled trades (plumbing, electrical, HVAC etc.) than people think. I have been coordinating jobs with tradespeople for some years and that group skews very old - I’ve met many in their 70s who refuse to retire until they are literally struck down physically. There also seems to be a distinct lack of tradespeople in their 20s-30s or so.
Furthermore, they can make excellent money (many know how to use the system to maximize overtime pay, etc.), they are constantly in demand, and have many options as to their work location and type (commercial, residential, industrial, military, etc). Some of the biggest houses in my area are owned by career tradespeople who appear to be making money hand over fist. They get nice perks if they are in a union as well.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if we see many young North Americans migrate from wannabe-white-collar jobs back to the trades. Those jobs may also have a coolness factor to them now (look at all those Discovery Channel shows) that didn’t really exist 20 years ago during the IT bubble.
As to your first point, disability is always a legal determination. If by “standards that are clear”, you mean “one is disabled if X, Y and Z,” then the standard will essentially be useless. I mean, you can break it down that way (“one is disabled if a physical or mental incapacity combines with vocational factors to preclude one from obtaining employment which exists in the economy”) but it’s a pretty meaningless statement without case law and expert testimony.
As to your second, I know of (not know personally) thousands of 60 year olds doing manual labor, including people doing construction work.
I’m not sure why you don’t decouple disability costs from total M-M-SS costs. The majority of the $1.5 trillion is payment that the recipients have fully paid for and doesn’t have much economic impact one way or the other by its mere existence.