Yes, that’s true. Mine was approved immediately, no attorney. But in my case it was blindness, and for some reason, blindness is a special category of SSD processing, and works through a different set of channels, and beneficiaries are subject to different criteria of ongoing scrutiny. All, apparently, more liberal and forgiving.
But I have worked to assist other applicants, and generally, all were handled like I described in my previous post. A lot of people, genuinely qualified, are simply unaware that there is an appeal process that has a high success rate. Your attorney isy our best guide – if he takes y our case, you will almost certainly be approved, because if it’s not, the attorney doesn’t get paid.
The first couple of posts in this thread have it correct. Denial on the first time isn’t automatic, though the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the government has quotas to meet. The amount to be collected by law firms is set by law, but they get paid quickly. Most of the slow down is because of the government (because not enough workers or good enough for government work? take your pick…) Most, I would dare say all, of the large law firms you see that advertise nationally have a network set up of local counsel affiliates (of some type) and they have some sort of fee split set up for the referrals. Or, the large law firm may have found a very efficient process and they are trying to exploit it; either way, as one poster above said, merely having a lawyer file and show up is more than half the battle. Typically, a source for referrals is either your state’s bar association or your city’s largest legal association.
Re: the time required, there is a bit of a chicken and egg issue here. Are there too few (or too lousy) gov’t employees, or are there too many applications? What level of staffing are you willing to pay for?
This is an interesting assessment probably true to some degree. So how do you explain the Veteran’s Administration constituting quite literally the largest HMO in the country with a very definable, limited customer base taking even longer to process disabled Veteran’s claims?
The VA are working down the backlog (in part) by paying more and more claims. While the number of veterans is limited, the number of claims/appeals each individual vet can file is not. Nor is there any setoff of earnings or other benefits against VA disab.
Also, the VA had horribly archaic infrastructure. I’m not sure that the VA’s medical providers have a great role in disability determinations. Entirely different things. And, tho I’m not an expert, my understanding is that many aspects of VA services have gone horribly underfunded for decades.
A mammoth scandal IMO, but any questioning of benefits to presumably disabled vet’s gets little traction in this atmosphere of vet-worship.
None of this is to suggest that there aren’t a great number of vets who fully deserve disab benefits. But IMO far too little attention is paid to the growing number of IMO undeserving vets who are simply working the system to obtain welfare.
Good points - pointing to at the most fundamental level, bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy - the same as afflicts the SSA.
You’re going to need to explain that one, unless we may assume it’s simply the uninformed opinion of someone who does not respect military veterans, for whatever reason, generally speaking.
Shall we also assume then, that SSA disability is also being “worked” to obtain welfare in exactly the same way?
Actually they have a primary role, because claim determinations are based on the medical records they create. Veterans not being treated by the VA directly are at a disadvantage in this regard due to the additional cost, time and validation requirements for pulling in records from outside sources.
The SSA doesn’t actually do most disability determinations; that is the province of state-level offices operated by state governments. (The Kansas Office of Disability Determination Services, for example, is part of the Kansas Dept for Children and Families; in Oklahoma, it’s part of the Dept of Rehabilitation Services.) At least in this part of the world, most state governments have undergone multiple rounds of layoffs, reductions via attrition, “efficiency studies,” and similar, in an effort to reduce headcount. Fewer state employees = more time for the state to make a decision and relay it to SSA.
I don’t think it requires much explanation at all. The Congressional Budget Office has studied the issue of veteran disabilities at some length; even as the number of veterans declines in this country (as the cohort who saw service in WWII/Korea dies off), the number of veterans claiming disabilities has skyrocketed, increasing by 55% between 2000 and 2013. Most of the increase is not driven by Iraq/Afghanistan, at least not yet; most of the growth is based on Vietnam and Gulf War veterans making new applications (although about 45% of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans are already receiving disability compensation).
A lot of this growth is driven by policy changes: VA regulations, for example, now direct the automatic presumption that type 2 diabetes in veterans who served in Vietnam is service-connected and compensable. Rates for type 2 diabetes are surging in men who never went anywhere near Southeast Asia, but if they served in-country, diabetics are basically guaranteed a monthly check, because the VA can’t prove that it wasn’t Agent Orange that caused the disease.
Certainly, there’s some “working” in the SSA disability program, but there’s one really important difference: the VA generally does NOT require any showing that the disability is actually hindering employment or employability, whereas the SSA generally requires a finding that the disability prevents any substantial gainful activity, and has a five-month waiting period before any benefits are due. (There are some exceptions to these general rules, such as the VA rules on mental disorders, but broadly speaking it is quite possible to hold down a full-time job and draw VA disability benefits, whereas that’s mostly not legal for SSDI.) In 2013, for example, about three-quarters of male veterans who had been determined disabled by the VA or DoD and who had left the military after September 2001 were either working or actively looking for work. (see CBO report above-cited)
Uninformed, perhaps, but through my job on a near-daily basis I’ve seen far too many instances of folk whose long history of substance abuse, consistent negative PTSD screenings, and lengthy work history, magically turn into 100% PTSD pays.
Honestly, I have no idea what percentage of VA disability claims fit my criteria for bullshit. Hell, even if it were as low as 5%, that would still be a chunk of cash going to a lot of goldbricks. A good part of my personal objections has to do with the VA’s definition of disability, and the lack of any set off against other earnings/benefits.
Look at that stat slash tossed out - 45% of Iraq/Afgh vets are receiving some disab bens. Seriously? Hell, I opposed the actions from the start, and I’m sure they were hellish. Didn’t see me volunteering or urging my kids to. But you really are going to suggest to me that nearly 1/2 of all the folk in those actions have compensable impairments? What percentage of vets even saw combat for crying out loud? If we are going to break half of our warriors, I sure HOPE we are more discriminating about which shredders we dump them into. But, that is going well off topic…
And yeah, anyone who suggests a significant component of SSA DIB/SSI is not welfare is blowing smoke. A drowning person grasps at anything. No big secret that when the economy goes down, disability claims go up.
So between the states and the Feds, SAA disability bureaucracy is spread wide and deep. Nice.
The problem is not enough of them are getting killed anymore. Advancements in medevac and trauma treatment have enabled many soldiers who would have died in earlier wars to survive their wounds. Lots of people getting arms and legs blown off survive these days.
50,000 troops were wounded in combat in Iraq/Afghanistan; 700,000 veterans of those conflicts had filed disability claims as of 2013.
I’m not disputing that many many of those claims are perfectly legitimate; exposure to toxins, for example, was probably much higher in recent wars. However, surviving wounds does not begin to account for the very high rates of disability claims.
What are you disputing? Here’s a number for you: Less than 1% of all U.S. citizens ever serve in the military. If you like big numbers and are concerned about disability fraud, you are barking up the wrong tree. Comparing and contrasting the corresponding SSA numbers might provide a little perspective.
I am disputing that the tremendous growth in VA disability claims is primarily because “not enough of them are getting killed anymore.” Read the statistics again: 50,000 combat wounded, 700,000 disability claims.
As of December 2016, there are 8.8 million disabled workers receiving some type of disability benefit from SSA; the latest stats I can find from the VA are that 4.2 million veterans received some form of disability compensation as of September 2015.
Most common disability for VA benefits: ringing in the ears.
Most common disability for SSA benefits: disorders of the musculoskeletal system
What exactly would you like compared and contrasted?
Having been screwed over by a TV-advertising national firm this household would suggest a local guy. Get references. Make sure they aren’t going to take you for a ride, they will actually meet with you, and they won’t do anything to screw you up.
Each year, around 2.5 million people apply for Social Security disability benefits (SSI, SSDI, and dependents)–around one-third are granted. Another million or so existing claims are reviewed, and more than a hundred thousand people have benefits terminated because their medical condition no longer warrants payment. Every one of these cases generates paperwork. Under what set of circumstances could processing this many cases NOT require a small army of bureaucrats?
An additional data point: the Social Security Administration did a comparison of veterans who had been rated 100% service-connected disabled by the VA who also applied for Social Security disability benefits. Although the SSA is required to consider the VA’s decision in making its determination, over a quarter of these veterans were DENIED by SSA for failing to meet SSA medical and/or medical-vocational criteria to be entitled to benefits.
Note that disability claims don’t just cover combat injuries, they cover training accidents, sporting accidents, car wrecks, simple slip and fall while on active duty, effects of disease (cancer, infection, medical malpractice, infection, contagioius disease)/ Also, not everyone applying for benefits is from the latest war. I find myself advising people who were affected in ‘Nam, and once a man whose grandfather was a WWII vet. Also there are disabilities that are what I call "statutory’ disabilities. That a statute or even in one case a court decision has said that if X happened on active duty it gets Y compensation. These are automatic if proper medical evidence and a medical exam confirms them.
I’m not surprised that ringing in the ears is the commonest VA claim. The military is a noisy place.
And difficult to combat, as ear protection generally limits one’s ability to hear orders, communicate, be aware of surroundings - all things critical in the military. Add more gear/batteries/weight for high tech solutions? Moreover, wearing of hearing aids is generally treated as a disqualifying factor, as opposed to glasses. Not sure why…
So, if a certain percentage of folk who volunteer to serve/work in the military are expected to develop some degree of hearing problems, as a society, how much is that worth? How much do we want to pay those people for the rest of their lives?
It depends on how they are rated considering a plethora of factors. How that number is arrived at is codified in excruciating detail in policies and procedures being continuously evaluated, updated and applied across the board for all veterans.
But somehow I feel that is not answering your question, as posed. It seems to be begging for a question something more like: How do we minimize the amount we are paying veterans? Especially the goldbricks? So I would offer similar guidance as suggested to slash: There are much, much bigger low-hanging fruits for the government budget wonks to chew on. Pick one and consider increasing VA funding. Those bureaucrats will take of the business as seen fit by the powers that be. It’s always up for a vote on some bill being batted back and forth.