Here is the Forgotten Man - How is Trump helping him? (legal, stats)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Recall, I work for the ODAR as a an attorney/writer. I will note that the judge I write for easily gets out 40 decisions a month. The article citing administrative law judges getting out just 10 makes me shake my head.
The staff shortage is cited in the article. We did have some slight increase in the past few years, but mainly for the branch charged with rooting out fraud on those already receiving disability (filming them water skiing or what have you). For most of my 30 years here, we had 2 such investigators for north Texas. I think we now have a couple of more.
The article refers to 'new regulations' concerning the 'new medical evidence' the judge must consider. I am not familiar with this new regulation. After all, since 1988 (when I started) the representative for the claimant was charged with getting 'all' of the medical evidence. If the claimant were not represented, then the judge was suppose to obtain all the evidence (meaning, letters sent out to the medical sources provided by the claimant, asking for the medical records to be sent forthwith, and promising a grand total of $18.00 for their time; no wonder some hospitals and doctors make it low priority).
One new regulation is that all medical evidence must be in office five days prior to the hearing. If the attorney (for example) shows up at hearing with new medical (or, old medical, which is the norm) the judge is suppose to deny its entry into the hearing record for being too late. Unless 'good cause' is shown. Of course, if the judge denies the late medical records, they now have a new basis for the claimant appealing the unfavorable decision. It does not make a lot of sense to me, since the time between the hearing and our getting a decision in mail may be several months. It was common for me to look at (after the judge) new medical literally the day before I had a decision ready, and I would address it.
One reason for the delay in claimants having a hearing: a large number of attorneys will seek a 'dire need' status. One of my jobs is reviewing such requests. If I find 'dire need', then that claimant goes to the head of the line for a hearing. Dire need includes terminal illness (rare) or financial distress (most common).
Yet, I must point out that making a 'dire need' request actually pulls the case out of line (for scheduling for hearing), for me to review. If I find no dire need, the case goes back in line: but not where it had been, but at the end of the line. Why, I don't know.
Anyway, so many people qualify for 'dire need' that those that did not request dire need are simply being pushed back. It used to be that we scheduled hearings in strict order (by date of the 'request for hearing').
One other reason for delay: many claimants will refuse to have a videoconference hearing, whereas they testify from one location, while the judge sits in his office. If they do not want a videoconference hearing, but insist on appearing at the office, the case will be delayed (especially if they want to appear at an 'outer office: we in Fort Worth cover Lubbock, Abilene and Midland; the judges only travel out to those places for a few days every month or two).
I will also note that many claimants simply fail to appear at their first hearing. It used to be that the judge would then dismiss the case, unless the claimant had a good reason for forgetting. However, the rules changed a few years ago, and the judges feel that they simply have to reschedule the case; since it is getting 'old', it has priority. Indeed, I have seen several cases, just in the past month or two, where a claimant misses two or three hearing dates (with two months between each scheduled case). Sometimes it is because they are working, which fact they often neglect to tell the judge (I can usually find such evidence in the medical records).
Since I must now return to work, I shall end here. I may drop in with more later.
Hard for me to imagine - being in construction and heavy equipment my whole life - how vinyl siding installation ruins a person for good.....but who I am to judge?
I suppose depression has a lot to do with it - not exactly a full life sitting in the trailer watching the tube.
50 lbs roll he was lifting? Heck, I'm 64 and I can still do a bundle of shingles easily (70 lbs, sometimes more)....
But, in any case, how is Trump helping these forgotten people. The stats show 10,000 plus are dying each year while waiting for a decision. No wonder the white person (male especially) mortality is dropping in this country.
MAGA - don't make me laugh! The troops are having Starbucks over in Syria and our own people are dying by the tens of thousands due to lack of resources.
How do you expect the president, any president, to magically fix every bogged down court docket. Exactly how would you within the powers of the president help these "forgotten people"?
I was unaware that Presidents can stop people from dying..
hell, I was even unaware that simply collecting disability meant you couldnt die.. Where does one sign up for this fountain of youth?
If you go on full disability you are also eligible for Medicare. Clue Everyone, no matter the condition, gets automatically turned down on their initial submission and the vast majority get turned down on their second and end up having to go to court. The entire process can and usually does take over a year sometimes two years from start to finish, typical government inefficiency. So, yes many do die because they are unable to work, and as such have no income or medical health coverage while having a major health issue, get it now?
Now, let us examine some points about the WP article, particularly about 8,699 people dying in 2016 while waiting for their disability decision (from an ALJ), and 10,002 in fiscal year 2017 (meaning, as of September 30th, the end of our fiscal year).
The WP article notes that Joe, the subject of the piece, is one of 1.1 million people either waiting for their hearing or, if they had a hearing, waiting for a decision.
I have certainly written cases in which the claimant died. They sometimes (not always by any means) die of something unrelated to the impairments they were claiming upon filing disability. Far too often the claimant died from an overdose of drugs (whether illicit or prescribed).
Plus, when I started my career here in 1988, the average age of a claimant was perhaps in his or her 40s. I would maintain that the average age is in the 50s, and I have seen a definite upswing in claimant's in the age 60-64 category (which used to be rare indeed). Since those filing for disability (note that "Joe" is 55) are generally older, it is not surprising that a higher rate die during the wait.
I do not have the figures of how many claimant's actually file a 'request for hearing'. Recall, when one goes to their local Social Security office (or online) to file for disability, the matter is initially determined by the State agency (DDS). If denied, in most states they must file for reconsideration with that same agency. Only then, may they file a request for hearing in front of a Federal ALJ.
Some may find this an interesting chart to reflect on:
Note that in 2016, 2,321,583 individuals filed for disability. It is explained (at bottom) that this number is ONLY for 'disabled worker benefits', meaning those that have worked the necessary amount of time, and so are filing on their own earnings (Title II benefits).
The figure does not include those filing for disabled child benefits (meaning, disabled as of or prior to age 22, and filing on a parent's earnings record) or those filing for widow benefits (all also Title II). I recently had a child case concerning a 40 year old man that was filing on his dead father's earnings records, claiming disability that began prior to his attainment of age 22 (he was denied).
The figure also does not include those that filed for Supplemental Security Income Benefits based on disability (Title XVI). This is a welfare-based program, so the claimant must show that he or she does not exceed the limitations on income and/or resources. I am currently writing a case involving a 52 year old man that has never worked (save for some $900 he earned back in 1988). He has filed some five times before, and always denied (as he is now).
Anyway, the number of applications for disability filed in 2016 is probably closer to 3 million, once you add in the other type of applications I spoke of.
I do not have the stats on the percentage of the foregoing that actually file a request for hearing. If I can find, I will supplement this little essay.
Anyway, my point is: the number of 10,002 is perhaps not that unreasonable, when you consider the whole picture. If you identify 1.1 million people, and they were all healthy, what number would you expect to die, for whatever reason, during the course of a year? If the 1.1 million were generally unhealthy, wouldn't one expect that number to be higher?
I often speak out against those that cite 'numbers', without some context.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
