|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 8, 2013 9:26:10 GMT -5
I understand your viewpoint maque. I just think it came off slightly more angry to some people than you wanted. I do not disagree that some people are on the rolls that are not deserving. Certain lifestyle choices should possibly preclude benefits, while others not. I was not trying to pick on you per se. I appreciate and respect your viewpoint and probably am a lot closer to your viewpoint than you believe. I just found the tone of the post when I read it as slightly angry and I am sure that wasn't your real intent. You were just trying to point out some important issues which I respect and understand completely maque. Thank you for clarifying for me.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 8, 2013 9:40:31 GMT -5
MPD, You noted, " your job is not to worry about exactly how much money is left in the trust fund. If you are doing that, you have already prejudged many of your cases." One of the hats we wear as an ALJ is to protect the Trust Fund.. It's not easy being Green as the Muppets would say. Peter J. Martinelli, who served as Chief Administrative Law Judge in the Springfield hearings office, explained to Congress how the ALJ wears three hats: 1.a Judge who provides full and fair hearings; 2.a person who assists the claimants by developing the record and their cases, even if they are represented; and, 3.a trustee for the Social Security Trust and General Tax Funds. Judge Martinelli pointed out that "the last two duties require a judge to, in essence, represent opposing sides." While you may think about the effects on the Social Security Trust Fund, it shouldn't effect your decision about the claimant. You are to be following the Social Security rules, laws and regulations as written in making your decision. I am not trying to be ignorant bartleby, but please show me anywhere in the law, rules or regulations written regarding Social Security and Social Security Disability where the ALJs are to act as a trustee for the Social Security Truest Fund? I would appreciate an actual legal reference to a law, rule or regulation, not a reference to someone's opinion as to what his/her job entails, like your quote from CALJ Martinelli. By the way bartleby, I am not picking on you, but I want to understand your viewpoint on this issue more than just what you stated above. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 8, 2013 9:42:32 GMT -5
Assertion starts with @$$ Maq not your fault the web page is concerned that we will all be killed by the affront of @$$ertions. Hmm is seems ok with it if I do it? ?? I think the word maque was trying to state was a--umption, not a--ertion gaiden. A$$umption is never able to be stated on this Board spelled correctly.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 8, 2013 10:28:07 GMT -5
MPD, you noted, " but please show me anywhere in the law, rules or regulations written regarding Social Security and Social Security Disability where the ALJs are to act as a trustee for the Social Security Truest Fund? I would appreciate an actual legal reference to a law, rule or regulation." I like the way you think. Hmmmm, I will have to give this some research as you may be right. Maybe they lied to us in Judge school and we only wear two hats.. What a relief to get that Trust Fund monkey off my back. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 8, 2013 10:33:17 GMT -5
MPD, you noted, " but please show me anywhere in the law, rules or regulations written regarding Social Security and Social Security Disability where the ALJs are to act as a trustee for the Social Security Truest Fund? I would appreciate an actual legal reference to a law, rule or regulation." I like the way you think. Hmmmm, I will have to give this some research as you may be right. Maybe they lied to us in Judge school and we only wear two hats.. What a relief to get that Trust Fund monkey off my back. Thank you. You are too funny bartleby. I love the humor. Sorry about any dust-ups between us in the past, but I really appreciate all of your posts and learn new things all the time. Please let me know if you do find something as I have never seen anything to this effect. Perhaps, Judge's school in it's teachings wasn't relying on actual case law, rules or regulations, when that quip was stated.
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Oct 8, 2013 10:41:37 GMT -5
Perhaps, you have just seen too many bad cases recently, which has slightly jaded your opinion about disability claimants. Remember, while your job is to properly weigh the evidence and testimony of the claimant and use the Social Security Rules and Regulations to make a proper determination of the claimant's disability claim, your job is not to worry about exactly how much money is left in the trust fund. If you are doing that, you have already prejudged many of your cases. Furthermore, if you are concerned so much about that issue, you probably need to change jobs and become a politician and they make determinations about the Social Security Trust Fund. I am not trying to be flippant or contrary maque, I just think your post came off a little more angry against the present disability system and claimants, than you originally intended. (At least, I hope that is the case.)These were just my general observations - not trying to be terribly confrontational, but there were just a number of comments about how the "60 Minutes" piece was throwing claimants and reps "under the bus" and how some people "hate the disabled" and so forth. So far as I know, very few people "hate" the disabled, though probably more than a few people "hate" non-disabled folks who try to get on the rolls by making mountains out of medical molehills. Also, ALJs perform a number of functions, one of which is to guard the trust fund against unreasonable claims made against it. It's part of the job to look out for the public fisc. Finally, I stand by I disagreeertion that more than half of the cases I hear are directly related to lifestyle choices. Does that mean I do not pay a person whose liver has been totally destroyed by alcohol consumption and related Hep C? No. I don't like it, but I do pay it. At the same time, I think a change will be forced upon us whether we want it or not. Maybe Bernanke can do something to quantitatively ease SSA obligations forever, but I doubt it, and I think there will come a reckoning. I think Maquereau is pretty accurate in his/her assessment. Most judges are paying less than 50 percent of cases. In my office it's less than 40. I believe that given the economy a lot more desperate people are applying for benefits. Most of them are not truly disabled. In their view they are, but I'd probably feel the same way if my plant shut down and after 3 years of trying to find work, I'd had no luck. I don't think it's a leap for those individuals to start believing they physically or mentally can't work. It makes them feel better about themselves, because our society is much more forgiving of people who don't work due to disability, versus those who really want to work but can't find a job. It's not jaded for judges to recognize these factors, when deciding cases. I also agree that at least half my cases are lifestyle related, with obesity and smoking being first and foremost.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Oct 8, 2013 11:05:45 GMT -5
No one seems to be talking about a big elephant in the room--the continuing disablity review or lack thereof. I saw cases as a writer and now as a judge where the claimant is truly disabled at the time the decision is made but will get better. For example, the claimant who had surgery, suffered from some complication that extended his recovery, and is still unable to return to any kind of work. But he is making progress and it is probable that his is not a permanent disability. But when will his file be reviewed again? The ones who come before me are not taking any steps to get retraining or trying to return to work. So how many years of benefits were paid to a person who improved and whose disability ceased? We have the review codes to indicate those people who will never get better and those who may. But cutting off someone's benefits is politically unpopular. There are cases where a defined period of benefits seems warranted. Mr. Claimant, you will receive a total of XX months of benefits. If you feel that your disability has continued once benefits cease, you may file a new application. No CDR. No continuing benefits while you go through the CDR process which in some cases has taken more than 1 year before it gets to an ALJ. Having defined benefits in these cases would also end the problem with the CDR of the person who should have never been paid. There would be no medical improvement standard. As a DDS DHO told me, imagine the frustration of having to continue payments to someone who cut off the end of one finger because an ALJ found that person disabled and the DHO cannot find any basis for medical improvement. The end of the finger was still gone.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 8, 2013 11:08:16 GMT -5
Perhaps, you have just seen too many bad cases recently, which has slightly jaded your opinion about disability claimants. Remember, while your job is to properly weigh the evidence and testimony of the claimant and use the Social Security Rules and Regulations to make a proper determination of the claimant's disability claim, your job is not to worry about exactly how much money is left in the trust fund. If you are doing that, you have already prejudged many of your cases. Furthermore, if you are concerned so much about that issue, you probably need to change jobs and become a politician and they make determinations about the Social Security Trust Fund. I am not trying to be flippant or contrary maque, I just think your post came off a little more angry against the present disability system and claimants, than you originally intended. (At least, I hope that is the case.)These were just my general observations - not trying to be terribly confrontational, but there were just a number of comments about how the "60 Minutes" piece was throwing claimants and reps "under the bus" and how some people "hate the disabled" and so forth. So far as I know, very few people "hate" the disabled, though probably more than a few people "hate" non-disabled folks who try to get on the rolls by making mountains out of medical molehills. Also, ALJs perform a number of functions, one of which is to guard the trust fund against unreasonable claims made against it. It's part of the job to look out for the public fisc. Finally, I stand by I disagreeertion that more than half of the cases I hear are directly related to lifestyle choices. Does that mean I do not pay a person whose liver has been totally destroyed by alcohol consumption and related Hep C? No. I don't like it, but I do pay it. At the same time, I think a change will be forced upon us whether we want it or not. Maybe Bernanke can do something to quantitatively ease SSA obligations forever, but I doubt it, and I think there will come a reckoning. I think Maquereau is pretty accurate in his/her assessment. Most judges are paying less than 50 percent of cases. In my office it's less than 40. I believe that given the economy a lot more desperate people are applying for benefits. Most of them are not truly disabled. In their view they are, but I'd probably feel the same way if my plant shut down and after 3 years of trying to find work, I'd had no luck. I don't think it's a leap for those individuals to start believing they physically or mentally can't work. It makes them feel better about themselves, because our society is much more forgiving of people who don't work due to disability, versus those who really want to work but can't find a job. It's not jaded for judges to recognize these factors, when deciding cases. I also agree that at least half my cases are lifestyle related, with obesity and smoking being first and foremost. Perhaps you didn't see my subsequent post, so here it is again. I understand your viewpoint maque. I just think it came off slightly more angry to some people than you wanted. I do not disagree that some people are on the rolls that are not deserving. Certain lifestyle choices should possibly preclude benefits, while others not. I was not trying to pick on you per se. I appreciate and respect your viewpoint and probably am a lot closer to your viewpoint than you believe. I just found the tone of the post when I read it as slightly angry and I am sure that wasn't your real intent. You were just trying to point out some important issues which I respect and understand completely maque. Thank you for clarifying for me.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 8, 2013 12:54:52 GMT -5
Many Judges and I have had discussions involving CDR's. A lot of us recommend a one or two year medical review on our decisions. We have discussed being able to award claimants medical care instead of benefits. We have discussed retaining jurisdiction over claimants and having them return in a year in front of us for re-evaluation. There are a lot of good things that can be done, but not until the program is fixed. To continue to do the same thing and expect different results is insanity as someone famous once said..
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Oct 8, 2013 16:45:47 GMT -5
Maquereau, my experience is much like yours. I am having a hard time finding definitive diagnosis of fibromyalgia as required by our Reg's. It usually is self-reported by the patient and then becomes a part of the medical records ever afterward.. Same with the generational thing. I used to write for a judge that would note in the decision, "The claimant's spouse is on the dole, but he won't be." That was years ago, I wouldn't try it nowadays what with the bias complaint system.. Rheumatologists diagnose it based on certain criteria. The literature I've read seems to indicate a growing divide in diagnoses. One group often referred to a central pain processing disorder that generally responds well to drugs that change brain chemistry (generally anti-depressants) and nerve pain drugs. Then a second group of we don't know what is going on to explain why you hurt. I've seem a small subset that seem to be related to Lyme disease and respond to long-term anti-biotic use.
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Oct 8, 2013 16:57:41 GMT -5
I don't believe fraud is "rampant". I pay less than half of the cases that go to decision (I ignore dismissals in pay rate). The majority of the people I deny have real problems that do limit the type of work they can do.
I see a number of people who do not have realistic expectations of life. Most people have some pain and discomfort as they age. It is harder to do the jobs available to unskilled and low-skilled workers as you get older but needing to take ibuprofen to make it through the work day isn't disability. Not feeling chipper after work is normal for more demanding jobs but some people expect that they should be discomfort free.
Sure there are people who just going to file and file and file in hope of a winning ticket and many will eventually get that ticket when they hit the right spot in the GRID but they aren't the core of who we see.
|
|