Ah - you guys got me! I thought wrong. Used the word “disabled” to describe my job, not in the questions I asked. I obviously have no credibility! 
I suspect I’m done with this thread. Enjoy!
It doesn’t appear you were interested in hearing observations that differed from your initial conclusion.
No - I was interested in any and all observations with respect to my initial questions - not a general discussion reflecting varying and inconsistent definitions of “disability” - as seems to have become the focus.
You initially asked about the relationship between actual employment limitations and the ability to complete college level courses. I saw several responses address that. It necessarily includes some discussion of how “disability” is defined. Certainly Social Security has a very concrete definition, but in educational institutions, it could be quite different (and probably is).
What percentage of people “who claim to have a disability” do you encounter at work who you suspect do not have one? The people I have met who have applied for SSDI benefits do so reluctantly and only as a last resort.
Not saying the word “disability,” even if you hadn’t, wouldn’t change anything. I am sure you are well versed in the SSD definition of disability and the various factors involved, which I assume is what you’re talking about, and I’m sure that informs how you would answer the question you asked.
But you asked about degrees that involved accommodations and “physical and/or mental-emotional limitations.” That’s a question that is definitely entirely about disability, and specifically ADA disability analysis. Degrees that come with accommodations are the result of a process required by the ADA. You’re asking if, by following the rules required of them by the federal government in accommodating individuals with disabilities, schools are giving out deceptive or at worst fake degrees.
I think you are trying to connect the dots between a disability that can be reasonably accommodated in an educational setting, which results in a degree, and the person who received that accommodation later asserting that they are permanently disabled and cannot work, i.e. SSD disabled. Which is an interesting and complicated question and very reasonable to have a hard time feeling like you’re doing the “right” thing in a given case, and it sounds like that’s what is in your head when you ask these questions. But people are responding to what you asked in your OP. This is not an issue of “varying and inconsistent definitions.” There’s just the one.
How embarrassing for you to say that.
Some courts have weighed in on that question, and of course each case is very fact dependent.
Dr. Stubits’ findings, in fact dispelled such a conclusion, by determining that despite her intelligence testing, Higgins was found to have an eighth grade reading and fourth grade math capabilities; and, that she could perform better in those areas, than would be expected from her test scores.
Furthermore, Higgins’ ability to complete high school and two years of college, albeit not at the top of her class, is a further indication that she does not suffer from adaptive functioning deficits.
Higgins v. Barnhart, 288 F. Supp. 2d 811, 819 (S.D. Tex. 2002)
The ALJ pointed to Plaintiff’s ability to attend his local community college. Plaintiff, however, provided evidence that he is barely able to maintain any grade point average at all. A 1.00 grade point average would indicate a lack of consistent class attendance and serious problems completing assigned work. The ALJ wrote that Plaintiff’s daily activities of attending school and limited work around the house, “demonstrates a level of vigor and ability to concentrate and interact which is inconsistent with the claimant’s claim that he is unable to perform any work activity due to disabling physical problems.” Tr. at 18. This statement by the ALJ is not reflective of the record before him.
White v. Barnhart, 368 F. Supp. 2d 947, 950 (S.D. Iowa 2005)
Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Sweet’s determination that Bayliss has difficulty paying attention, concentrating, and organizing herself without getting overwhelmed. The ALJ agreed with Dr. Sweet’s conclusions, but the ALJ determined that the conditions Dr. Sweet identified would not affect Bayliss’s ability to work. Bayliss has faced these limitations since at least 1995, before her 1998 accident, and they have not prevented her from completing high school, obtaining a college degree, finishing a Certified Nurses’ Aide training program, and participating in military training.
Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005)
By the time I see a claim, the individual has already been denied 2x. It has long frustrated me that the Agency does not provide more clear stats as to the numbers of claims that are paid at each level, and the percentage of unsuccessful claims that are appealed to the next level. I recently saw some such stats, but they were presented in a manner that was quite opaque with me despite 35 yrs experience.
But at my level, I believe ALJs award benefits somewhere in the low 40% - around 42%. I am slightly below the average, but nowhere near an outlier. So, according to some 1200 or so ALJs, nearly 60% of the folk requesting hearings are not disabled - as SS defines that term. Some of the favorable decisions may be only partially favorable - either a later onset date, or a closed period of bens.
Some percentage of unfavorable ALJ decisions are appealed to the Appeals Council and then to the district courts. Those bodies pay extremely few claims, but some percentage are remanded and, upon remand, some percentage of claims are eventually paid.
It strikes me that it would be quite easy and extremely useful for the Agency to present that info - which IMO&E is a pretty good indicator of something they WILL NOT do! 
With only very rare exception, everyone who appears before me has SOMETHING wrong with them. Using SS terms, that is they experience a “medically determinable impairment.”
Sorry that embarrasses you. Not me, as she referred to (I presumed) her H (Sr Weasel) as a mental health professional. I shoulda used the cute name, but didn’t care enough to do so.
I wrote, but then deleted, a post that addressed this. Three good links:
What Percentage of Disability Appeals are Approved? - Kenneth G. Marks
From the last link:
In 2016, about 35.4 percent of all Social Security disability benefits claims were approved at the initial application stage, also called the initial adjudicative stage. This means that just about 65 percent of applicants did not receive awards right out of the gate.
Those that do wish to appeal will request a reconsideration of their application. At the reconsideration stage in 2016, 41,139 awards resulted from 445,260 requests, meaning only 9.2 percent of reconsiderations were successful. The success rate is often low at this stage of the appeals process because your claim is being reviewed by the same agency that denied your claim in the first place. Even though a different examiner will handle the reconsideration, the likelihood is low that they will overturn the denial unless the initial examiner made an obvious error.
One of the most successful stages of the appeals process is the ALJ hearing. The same year as above, 12,535 decisions were made at ALJ disability hearings, with 5,826 approvals, which comes out to an approval rate of 46.5 percent. While the number of hearings is not as high as reconsiderations, a higher percentage of appellants are successful.
Fewer people still decide to continue pursuing disability benefits after an ALJ hearing and with varying success. Statistics indicate that the Appeals Council approves only 13 percent of cases reviewed, while those who file lawsuits in federal district court may have up to a 40 percent chance of prevailing.
At the end of 2016, there were 578,780 final approvals and 575,381 final denials after exhausting all appeals. Even with four different levels of appeals, just over 50 percent of applicants ended up with benefits. The average percentage of approvals can also vary widely from state to state, especially at each stage of appeals. For example, Hawaii and Utah have the highest approval rates at ALJ hearings, while Alaska and Kansas have – by far – the lowest hearing approval rates. Many factors go into the success of a disability appeal.
SSA’s Disability process really is one helluva protracted crucible. Arguably, it should be because it’s depends on the wise use of taxpayer funds.
But like most things, there’s a lever or a dial, and – just by looking at the statistics – I have to wonder if the dial doesn’t need a bit of a tweak toward approval rather than denial.
At the very least, it seems that efficiency and speed could be looked at.
I don’t think people embark upon this journey lightly. It can be demoralizing, dehumanizing, defined by anguish, tedium, and disappointment, and – truly – a classic example of “the spreadsheet belies the humanity.”
My ALJ friend was once a Prosecutor in the DA’s office. She left, unable to live with what it did to her perception of people, her assumptions about the accused, and the clear “win or die trying; this isn’t about The Truth” climate in which she worked.
I’d imagine burnout is a thing in your world …
Thx for the stats. A shame the Agency does not promulgate such stats in a manner as clearly as a claimant’s rep does.
He does not list the number of initial applications/awards. But he said there are 445k requests for recon, and only 41k are successful. Of the 400k unsuccessful, only 12.5k request hrgs.
Now there are any number of explanations for this drop off which I do not care to go into. Some folk choose to file new applications rather than appealing a pending one. But it looks like some 387k clmts are denied at recon and DO NOT request review.
I’m not sure one can draw any specific conclusions from this data. Are these 387k folk all truly deserving of bens, but are beaten down by a horrible process? Or are they grifters and deadbeats? Or something in between? But when folk complain about the wait times for SS disability, rarely if ever do they direct any criticism to the hundreds of thousands of folk who apply and as a matter of law are not entitled.
And you talk about efficiency and speed. Again, I’m not going to dredge up stats, but our wait list of pending requests for hrgs is WAY down. Many hrg offices lack sufficient cases, and I’m routinely hearing claims less than 12 months after the alleged onset of disability. And that includes a 75-day notice period prior to hrg. You may not think so, but that is pretty quick given all the moving parts.
Final thought (and I REALLY didn’t want to get this into it), after 35 years of doing this work full-time, I really couldn’t tell you what the purpose of SS disability programs are.
Many people would like to say it has something to do with helping the most needy. Well, sorta. But far moreso, it is just the application of a complicated regulatory framework. Doesn’t matter how pitiful your overall personal situation is, if your age, education, work experience, and functional capacity don’t fit you in the right pigeonhole, you ain’t getting benefits. But if you are well off but have a certain relatively mild medical condition and choose to retire, here’s your check!
Since general welfare was discontinued back in the 90s, there was a HUGE growth of disability claims. And when disability was ended for substance abuse - guess what? - all those substance abusers were actually depressed or bipolar! Claims go up when the economy is poor, and go down when it is good. Suggesting to me that SOME (not all) applications reflect something other than an INABILITY to do any kind of work. But what do I know?
IMO&E, the SS disability program is LARGELY being used as a general welfare program. Which I consider unfortunate - despite my personal support for various “welfare” programs.
But none of this has much to do with my original questions as to accommodated college education. 
It is not a happy job. But a heckuva lot of folk work a heckuva lot harder than me for a heckuva lot less $.
In government, as in the private sector, I (a former VP of a few different NYSE-traded companies) tend to blame the environment in which people work more than those who work in the environment.
Leadership.
Meaning: I generally take for granted that most civil servants are hard-working, well-meaning people, often as frustrated by the bureaucracies in which they work as the end consumer is.
But here’s a table that might give the high-level data you’re talking about:
Just looking at the overall approval (ie, were awarded SSD) rate between 1999 and 2016, there’s a pretty striking trend:
| YEAR | TOTAL_APPs | AWARD_RATE (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 1,265,037 | 56 |
| 2000 | 1,364,323 | 56.1 |
| 2001 | 1,513,411 | 55.5 |
| 2002 | 1,715,710 | 52.3 |
| 2003 | 1,941,894 | 47.8 |
| 2004 | 2,262,119 | 42.5 |
| 2005 | 2,087,733 | 43.5 |
| 2006 | 2,164,394 | 41.2 |
| 2007 | 2,216,564 | 41.2 |
| 2008 | 2,358,629 | 41.1 |
| 2009 | 2,753,012 | 40.2 |
| 2010 | 2,981,613 | 37.6 |
| 2011 | 2,952,087 | 36.4 |
| 2012 | 2,955,922 | 35.1 |
| 2013 | 2,790,681 | 34.6 |
| 2014 | 2,687,341 | 34 |
| 2015 | 2,539,462 | 30.9 |
| 2016 | 2,385,219 | 28.5 |
Rhetorically, what gives rise to this clear downward slope ? Has the ‘character’ of the population of applicants really changed that dramatically ? Is it, as you say, tied to the economy as much as anything else ?
Or is it at least as much Public Policy Prescriptions – top-down management dictating where the numbers should fall, often at the expense of legitimate claims (a/k/a “managing to a specific metric”) ?
I don’t pretend to have the answers, but the simple high-level trend of successful claims during that period does give rise to lots of questions.
And slightly unrelated: I’d have to wonder how much time, energy, effort, and money is spent on the “Reconsideration” process for what appears to be very little benefit.
[from the cheap seats, of course]
And I think these things are on-point for your OP – at least to a degree – because if there is a component of Result By Decree, then you’re subject to that result. It’s the environment in which you’re working.
These sorts of top-down decrees can often be done in somewhat corrosive fashion, sometimes by creating an Us vs. Them dynamic that puts the providers at odds with their de facto customer base.
This often results in the aforementioned burnout, cynicism, and a sort of hardening that can infect organizations and yield myriad kinds of collateral damage.
I have no idea if any of this applies to your work, or to the SSA Disability system in general, but I may ask my former ALJ friend for her perspective
ETA: total applicants in each year
Thx for the stats, but no, that doesn’t really provide what I would like (but no longer really care about.). Here are some more stats. But what I really think would be useful is something like (made up numbers):
3 million initial applications filed.
500k initial awards
300k requests for recon (out of 2.5 mill init unfavorables)
30k recon awards
20k request for hrg (out of 270 recon unfavorables)
5k hrg awards
I really don’t understand the numbers you offer. As I said, I’m pretty confident that although awards have been decreasing, at the hrg level it remains in the low 40s. So I have no idea what 28.5% in 16 would be. Maybe awards at ALL levels as percentage of applications?
I’ll try to answer a couple of your questions (tho I WILL NOT participate in an open-ended “ask the ALJ” thread.)
Rhetorically, what gives rise to this clear downward slope ? Has the ‘character’ of the population of applicants really changed that dramatically ? Is it, as you say, tied to the economy as much as anything else ?
I think the economy most explains changes in initial applications. Or maybe subsequent appeals, as folk who CAN work, decide to do so instead of pursuing bens.
I think lower ALJ pay rates likely reflects a trend of more ALJs actually applying the law as it is written, rather than just awarding bens out of sympathy. Pretty nearly every single person appearing before me is sympathetic I one respect or another. But I am not supposed to base my decisions on my personal impressions or people as opposed to the law and evidence.
I also think there has been a weeding out of traditionally high paying ALJs. Paying claims is really the easiest thing to do. But if the average is 42%, why do folk not criticize the ALJs who are paying 80-90%?
Or is it at least as much Public Policy Prescriptions – top-down management dictating where the numbers should fall, often at the expense of legitimate claims (a/k/a “managing to a specific metric”) ?
There is absolutely NONE of this. To the contrary, I WISH there were some actuarial pronouncements saying, based on an “average” group of claims, if the law/policy were applied as intended, between x-y% would be awards. But I can pay 20% (I don’t) and my neighbor can pay 80%, and we both get an “atta boy!”
And slightly unrelated: I’d have to wonder how much time, energy, effort, and money is spent on the “Reconsideration” process for what appears to be very little benefit.
Well, recon IS somewhat different than init. At the init, SS (thru state agencies) basically reviews the evidence the claimant presents. Often unsophisticated clmts will not know what to submit. And under the law, the clot bears the burdens of proof and production. At the very least, they need to tell us who to contact t get med records.
If a clmt request recon, the agency will make further efforts to develop the record, including consultative exams if not already done.
I’m not sure about this, and haven’t crunched numbers, but I might suggest that the most important step in initial. The folk who are CLEARLY disabled (under the law) get paid, and those who CLEARLY are not, are denied and do not appeal. Compared to the number of initial applications and awards, it would not surprise me is the number of recon favorables and then the subsequent number of requests for hrg come close to being statistically irrelevant.
Pretty much all the cases that come to hrg are close cases that could be decided either way. When I’m feeling cynical, I observe that probably 80% of ALJs pay between 30-70%. That likely means that they are ALL paying the same 30% of clearly disabled, and are ALL denying the same 30% on the other end. So that leaves 40% in the middle, which re likely very close cases, and could almost as well be decided on a coin flip.
But no, I’d never be THAT cynical.
From my perspective as a psychiatrist working with lots of folks who have or have tried to get SSDI: the system seems rather inscrutable. It’s harder than it seems like it should be for me to predict who will get benefits, who won’t, and how hard they will have to work to get them.
It’s not surprising to me that applications increase during hard economic times. For the most part, people only apply for SSDI once they’ve given up on finding jobs that they can both get hired for and meet the expectations of. Whether someone is “employable” depends not only on their own capacities but on the state of the labor market.
Of course, officially that’s not what SSDI is for; if you are capable of doing some sort of job, then you’re not disabled. The fact that the jobs you are qualified for may not exist in anything like the number that would be required to employ everyone who is only qualified for those jobs…not their problem. And, AFAIK, the only thing they consider is whether you could DO some job, not whether you could manage to deal with the process of actually getting hired, which for many low level jobs involves a whole different set of cognitive abilities than actually doing the job. I certainly work with a lot of folks who I could imagine doing some job a lot more easily than I could imagine anyone hiring them.
I won’t belabor the point unnecessarily, and/because I truly do appreciate your perspective on this.
The table from which I pulled those three columns is here, whether for you or for another with interest.
Coupled with the percentages as given by that claimant’s attorney, and quoted above, one can pretty well extrapolate gross numbers at each step of the application process for each year.
And your point is well taken about … uh … extremely generous ALJs. There is a famous archetype [paywalled, but the graph tells the story]:
Other potentially interesting sources:
The Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) conducts Social Security Disability (SSD) hearings and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) hearings in almost every state. Currently the national average wait time for a hearing is 11.8 months . The national average case processing time is 418 days .The national average for winning a disability hearing is 44% . Click on one of the states below to see detailed information on each hearing office and the judges. This information was last updated on 10/01/2021.
As I say … much of what I’m putting forward now – this level of detail – is really for the knowledge base, and anybody else who may find it interesting.
Seems like it would be worth pointing out that this judge went to federal prison for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in order to falsify records and grant those awards, no?
I definitely should have mentioned that. Half the story was what an outlier he was. The other half was the repercussions for how and why:
So … thanks.
Yeah - Daugherty was a complete whore, but let me observe that up until he as exposed, he (and his Hearing Office Chief ALJ) were lauded for the high number of dispositions they were moving.
And that graph - from a newspaper - was clearer than ANYTHING I’ve seen promulgated within the Agency.
Thanks for seeking and linking those sources. But I doubt I’ll look. Just gonna move the next day’s worth of cases, and then the next day after that.
And FWIW - the data in that last link - Disability Judges - is notoriously inaccurate. I assure you that my and my office’s numbers are not what they present.
Very on point observations. The ability to get to a job, or whether a specific individual would be hired, is specifically excluded from consideration.
Of course, a large percentage of folk have never TRIED to get a job, never TRIED to work but were unsuccessful, NEVER contacted their local Dept of Vocal Rehab to see what assistance was available. I tend to consider such persons’ claims less favorably.
Many people think the standard ought to be whether they can do their past work, or the work they WANT to do. A truck driver hurts his back and can no longer drive truck. In his mind, he is disabled. He may even be drawing WC or employer’s LT disability, so he applies for SS as well. Just doesn’t cross his mind that he could do some crappy repetitive factory job.
Or a college student envisions themself in some professional job. Just doesn’t cross their mind that they could clean houses/offices. But - for a high school graduate under 55 - if there is SOME boring, minimum wage, simple, repetitive, crappy job that you are physically and mentally capable of performing, you ought not get SS disability bens.
When I encounter someone who is able to complete college, drive car, socialize w/ friends, but just claims they CAN’T motivate themselves to do a full-time job despite never having tried, yeah, I tend to be dubious. Just about every such claimant has some enabler who is willing to let them lie around on the couch watching TV, doing no chores. … And at least some mental health care providers seem happy to “affirm” such individuals’ perceptions.
I am not sure what type of evidence it would take to persuade me that someone with no physical problems, who is able to complete a full college load, drive, and socialize - cannot clean houses. Seems they are quite capable of doing what they WANT to do - just incapable of doing something they don’t care to do, and don’t thin they should have to do.
Which brings me back to the question of the purpose of your OP. Your mind seems to be pretty made up and by your own admission, is not likely to change. Look, I get it, not all applications for SSDI can be approved. But it seems like you’ve already decided on these things, and that experiences and information from other people haven’t persuaded you much. It would be helpful to know what you’re looking for.
I spun the data a little bit. It was all relatively simple.
Note that between 2010 and 2016, there are still between 4,800 and 357,000 pending cases per year (this figure consistently increases year-over-year). It isn’t clear at what stage of the process these pendings sit or how they affect this data. My guess is they’re largely pending appeal to Hearing levels.
| INITIAL | RECONSIDERATION | HEARING | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAR | TTL_APPLICANTS | %_APPROVED | %_APPEALED_FROM_LOWER_LEVEL | TTL_APPLICANTS | %_APPROVED | %_APPEALED_FROM_LOWER_LEVEL | TTL_APPLICANTS | %_APPROVED | %_APPEALED_FROM_LOWER_LEVEL |
| 1999 | 1,160,792 | 40% | #N/A | 397,127 | 15% | 57% | 265,058 | 73% | 78% |
| 2000 | 1,228,301 | 41% | #N/A | 407,758 | 14% | 56% | 290,068 | 73% | 82% |
| 2001 | 1,342,915 | 42% | #N/A | 434,185 | 13% | 55% | 313,839 | 73% | 83% |
| 2002 | 1,484,685 | 39% | #N/A | 502,441 | 11% | 55% | 369,875 | 72% | 83% |
| 2003 | 1,567,607 | 37% | #N/A | 542,986 | 11% | 55% | 401,747 | 72% | 83% |
| 2004 | 1,646,469 | 37% | #N/A | 558,632 | 10% | 54% | 415,339 | 73% | 83% |
| 2005 | 1,559,003 | 37% | #N/A | 514,277 | 10% | 52% | 384,341 | 74% | 83% |
| 2006 | 1,553,228 | 36% | #N/A | 514,442 | 10% | 52% | 387,021 | 72% | 84% |
| 2007 | 1,564,867 | 37% | #N/A | 519,254 | 11% | 53% | 387,412 | 71% | 84% |
| 2008 | 1,641,527 | 39% | #N/A | 546,426 | 11% | 54% | 405,196 | 68% | 83% |
| 2009 | 1,907,790 | 38% | #N/A | 644,222 | 10% | 55% | 482,354 | 64% | 83% |
| 2010 | 2,002,942 | 37% | #N/A | 706,069 | 9% | 56% | 532,593 | 60% | 83% |
| 2011 | 1,970,109 | 36% | #N/A | 724,422 | 9% | 57% | 547,263 | 56% | 83% |
| 2012 | 1,931,352 | 36% | #N/A | 714,075 | 9% | 57% | 542,279 | 52% | 83% |
| 2013 | 1,819,367 | 35% | #N/A | 682,244 | 8% | 58% | 509,396 | 50% | 34% |
| 2014 | 1,749,906 | 35% | #N/A | 644,031 | 9% | 57% | 380,158 | 54% | 65% |
| 2015 | 1,634,184 | 35% | #N/A | 564,563 | 10% | 53% | 113,368 | 53% | 22% |
| 2016 | 1,508,910 | 35% | #N/A | 445,260 | 9% | 46% | 12,535 | 46% | 3% |
|  |
The charts are, respectively (all with years 1999 - 2016 on the X-axis):
- % approval - initial
- % approval - recon
- % approval - hearing and beyond
- % appealed: initial > recon
- % appealed: recon > hearing and beyond
The screws do seem to be getting tighter … for some reason. It also speaks to the possibility that getting a disability attorney and strapping in for the long-haul is a pretty good strategy for a good faith claimant.
I’ll bow out of the little threadjack, now, but I do find this stuff fascinating – primarily after long talks with my former-ALJ friend (who married my longest-standing friend).
Well, if someone offered something sensible, I’d consider changing it. But I haven’t seen it yet in this thread. Instead, just a bunch of handwringing by folk ignorant about the SS disability program.
If I were the employer upthread who thought a college EE grad w/ a decent GPA was actually qualified to work as an EE, instead of an HR nightmare - I’d be pretty disappointed at that college. And I question what decision-making process is going on within the college, that they are turning out grads who ostensibly have certain credentials, but who in actuality are nowhere near that in terms of employment.
See, I think you are still misinterpreting the data somewhere. I think you may lack the familiarity with the program to appreciate how confusingly it is presented.
I KNOW we were never down anywhere close to 4800 pending hrg requests in any year back to 2010. 480k might have been possible, but I suspect it was higher. Maybe 5 years ago or so it peaked somewhere over 1.5 million. Now it is WAY down - maybe around 300k.