Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 18:05:56 GMT -5
The title of this thread is an example of language inflation. It calls a suggestion that Claimants' Reps write draft decisions for ALJ approval a "radical proposal." In the eighteenth century Jonathan Swift's suggestion that children be eaten, which included recipes, was called "a modest proposal." Nice that you picked up on my tongue and cheek labeling for this thread, Gary. As a former English Lit major, I fully intended to mimic Swift's satirical title. I could further expound on this with thoughts on modern-day bureaucracy, politicians, and the media at large (goodness knows, I've already deleted such ruminations before posting them on this thread.) Let's just say new ideas can sometimes be approached as if they involved eating children. Crazy, that this theme of eating children has emerged again, as I mentioned it in a prior post at Christmas time re lobster by CRAB. I can assure you that my two adult children are healthy and alive as I write. Thank you also to members on input regarding the fact that my "new" idea is not so new after all. That said, I believe it needs further exploration by the agency. |
|
float
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by float on Jan 6, 2015 19:03:01 GMT -5
Shortly after the FIT templates were released, a production version for reps to use was released. I had to buy Word to make it work, but I did it, used it, and submitted the document I produced as a prehearing brief. Reps have submitted bench decision scripts as prehearing briefs now that I'm on the other side. The problem is mechanical - there is no way to cut and paste the text into a writer's or judge's document when it is created outside the office. If retyping is required, there isn't much time saved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 19:24:55 GMT -5
Surely there is a simple IT solution to this problem. I'm married to an IT genius (opposites attract, and he has been a tremendous benefit to the IT end of my private practice). I will discuss the matter with hubby.
OK Follow up edit 10 minutes later after talking with hubby:
He states (the obvious?): that the inability to clip and paste is based on policy and not IT issues. Government does not want to open it's program to viruses. Understood.
But then hubby goes on to cite Madeline Albright as speaker at a conference given by his tech research company. Here, I paraphrase Ms. Albright:
"We're using 21st century technology to communicate 20th century data based on 19th century policy."
And to appease all English Lit majors in the audience:
"Therein lies the rub."
Hamlet.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheesy on Jan 7, 2015 0:05:23 GMT -5
As a point of comparison, when I was representing the Government before the EEOC, both sides would submit draft orders and draft opinions. This was also done in my military justice practice. Anything to save time, get a case off the docket, and provide resolution to a claimant while maintaining professional standards.
Just my after-midnight two cents worth. Take it at face value.
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 7, 2015 8:05:00 GMT -5
Thank you sir for finding those pages. I remember seeing those, but just couldn't remember where. It's pretty clear SSA doesn't want a representative to be doing FF findings of fact and conclusions of law for an ALJ. However, nothing prevents an OTR (on-the-record) request from being submitted by a representative pre-hearing. |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 7, 2015 8:28:45 GMT -5
Thank you sir for finding those pages. I remember seeing those, but just couldn't remember where. It's pretty clear SSA doesn't want a representative to be doing FF findings of fact and conclusions of law for an ALJ. However, nothing prevents an OTR (on-the-record) request from being submitted by a representative pre-hearing. Most judges I know would like to see a brief or memorandum outlining the rep's theory of the case and summation of evidence. I have relied on them as a timesaver (from good reps - most bad ones don't submit anything anyway) when paying cases. |
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Jan 7, 2015 8:33:47 GMT -5
Surely there is a simple IT solution to this problem. I'm married to an IT genius (opposites attract, and he has been a tremendous benefit to the IT end of my private practice). I will discuss the matter with hubby. OK Follow up edit 10 minutes later after talking with hubby: He states (the obvious?): that the inability to clip and paste is based on policy and not IT issues. Government does not want to open it's program to viruses. Understood. But then hubby goes on to cite Madeline Albright as speaker at a conference given by his tech research company. Here, I paraphrase Ms. Albright: "We're using 21st century technology to communicate 20th century data based on 19th century policy." And to appease all English Lit majors in the audience: "Therein lies the rub." Hamlet. Actually, there are a couple solutions that do not allow Reps access to SSA IT systems (if that is the problem). ... Require the Reps to print and present the document using a standard font, (i.e., Times New Roman 12 pt.) then use a good scanner in the ODAR office to scan the document in as text file in a preferred word processing format. I have a Fujitsu ScanSnap S1500 on my desk at home. In my private practice, I had one on every attorney, paralegal, and clerk's desk, set-up to automatically OCR (optical character read) any document into Microsoft Word format. Fabulous scanner, 15 pages per minute - scans both sides simultaneously. Alternatively, Reps are already filing documents in "E" section including - pre-hearing briefs. But the system defaults to creating a .dma viewable document. Provide a conversion tool that takes a fax scanned document and converts it to a .doc file in Word. There is always a tech solution! ht |
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper on Jan 7, 2015 8:52:20 GMT -5
Thank you sir for finding those pages. I remember seeing those, but just couldn't remember where. It's pretty clear SSA doesn't want a representative to be doing FF findings of fact and conclusions of law for an ALJ. However, nothing prevents an OTR (on-the-record) request from being submitted by a representative pre-hearing. Most judges I know would like to see a brief or memorandum outlining the rep's theory of the case and summation of evidence. I have relied on them as a timesaver (from good reps - most bad ones don't submit anything anyway) when paying cases. Agreed. I do receive briefs that are nothing more than a medical chronology - almost always provided by a non-attorney Rep. They are not that helpful because I review the medical records myself and look for more than a Rep would want to tell me. These Claimants usually contend they have 16 different medically disabling conditions most of which are either so remote in time as to be non-existent, or well controlled by medication or treatment. I take too much time reviewing meds for specious claims. The writers have to take too much time addressing every contended issue. Voila' backlog. The briefs that are helpful, are the ones spelling out what the Claimant and their attorney contend are the key medically disabling issues. These usually cite me to the Listing or condition, the supporting exhibit and page number, and contain an argument/statement of why the Attorney believes the Objective sign or diagnostic test supports the symptom complained of by the claimant and what makes it medically disabling. I always compliment the Attorney/Rep when I get a helpful brief. And when I get one that is not, I let the Rep know that as well, and tell him/her that if that if they want me to seriously consider their submission, they need to do it differently. I know I'm a newbie, but if I had gone into court in my private practice and submitted what I sometimes see now, many of the judges would have totally embarrassed me in front of my peers for drafting and submitting such a lousy/unfocused/unhelpful piece of work. ht |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 7, 2015 9:15:01 GMT -5
Thank you sir for finding those pages. I remember seeing those, but just couldn't remember where. It's pretty clear SSA doesn't want a representative to be doing FF findings of fact and conclusions of law for an ALJ. However, nothing prevents an OTR (on-the-record) request from being submitted by a representative pre-hearing. Most judges I know would like to see a brief or memorandum outlining the rep's theory of the case and summation of evidence. I have relied on them as a timesaver (from good reps - most bad ones don't submit anything anyway) when paying cases. I don't disagree maquereau as I do them on my cases. However, my post was in response to doing FF findings of fact and conclusions of law as Hannah was talking about and the OTR comes the closest to that scenario. Yes, my pre-hearing briefs have an inkling of that in them, but I am not trying to write findings of fact and conclusions of law for the ALJ in my pre-hearing brief, but spending more time pointing out the medical and where the ALJ should be looking in the medical to see the claimant's disabling conditions. Then making an argument why that piece of medical allows the client to be determined to be disabled by the GRIDS, sequential evaluation, SSRs, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 10:13:26 GMT -5
I'm going to clip and paste an example of a typical pre-hearing memorandum that I submit to ERE one week before hearing. I think this could easily lend itself to a FF decision. I have deleted names and identifying information. However, those in charge of this forum may think it is inappropriate to this public thread. If so, please delete immediately. I don't want to cross any boundaries. I just want to demonstrate what I think should be required of all claimant's reps, and what can assist in the quick issuance of a FF decision.
Social Security Administration
Office of Disability Adjudication & Review
In the claim of: :
Jane Doe : PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
SS#
: ALJ: Judge John Doe
Claimant
I.
Statement of Claimant’s Legal and Factual
Basis for Entitlement to Social Security Disability
and/or Supplemental Security Income Benefits.
A.
Basic Facts
A. Type of Claim: Title II; XVI
B. Amended Alleged Onset Date: November 10, 2011
C. DOB: ***
D. PFD: 11/14/2011
E: DLI: 03/31/2015
F. Education: limited, no GED, regular classes.
G. Vocational Training: n/a
H. Work History: cashier, housekeeper, residential instructor at group home.
I. Physical Problems: systemic lupus erythematosus; Sjogren’s syndrome; fibromyalgia; rheumatoid arthritis; irritable bowel syndrome; esophageal reflux; hyperthyroidism; sinusitis; history heart palpitations; vitreous degeneration, left eye, astigmatism, presbyopia;
J. Mental Problems: major depressive disorder, recurrent; anxiety; history alcohol abuse in sustained remission 5+ years.
B.
Argument/Law
Steps One and Two of the Sequential Evaluation Process:
The claimant has not performed substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date,
at which time she left her job as a cashier at a supermarket due to frequent episodes of
illness (Exhibits 5D; 6F, referencing). She wishes to amend her alleged onset date from
January 1, 2010, to November 10, 2011, at which time lab tests confirmed the diagnosis
of Sjogren’s Syndrome (Exhibit 10F). She has the severe physical and mental
impairments referenced in sections I and J, supra.
Step Three:
The claimant’s respective conditions may meet or equal Listing 14.02 covering systemic
lupus erythematosus, or Listing 14.10, covering Sjogren’s Syndrome. Both of those
listings require:
A. Involvement of two or more organs/body systems, with:
1. One of the organs/body systems involved to at least a moderate level of severity; and
2. At least two of the constitutional symptoms or signs (severe fatigue, fever, malaise, or involuntary weight loss).
OR
B. Repeated manifestations of SLE, with at least two of the constitutional symptoms or signs (severe fatigue, fever, malaise, or involuntary weight loss) and one of the following at the marked level:
1. Limitation of activities of daily living.
2. Limitation in maintaining social functioning.
3. Limitation in completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace.
The claimant was diagnosed with lupus with Raynaud’s phenomenon and arthritis of the joints in November 2011(Exhibit 10F). She was placed on Plaqueinil initially at 400 mg per day, but because of suicidal ideation she was reduced to 200 mg. She continues to experience worsening fatigue, joint aches and pain, and some dizziness. She also has decreased grip strength especially on her left and will often drop items (Exhibits 10F; see also 18F/2; 22F; 28F).
In addition, the claimant presented to her primary care physician with symptoms relating to Sjogren’s Syndrome as early as August 2011. She complained of joint aches, pains and fatigue, dry eyes and dry mouth and dry mucosal membrane, and tingling in the arms and finger tips (Exhibit 9F). On November 10, 2011, lab tests ordered by the claimant’s rheumatologist, Jim Doe, MD, at ** Medical Group, confirmed Sjogren’s Syndrome (Exhibit 10F). Follow up records indicate worsening fatigue, joint pain, hair loss, dry eyes and mouth, bilateral hand parasthesis, especially on the left, and, most recently, excessive sweating (Exhibits 14F; 18F; 28F/5; see also updated ** Rheumatology records faxed to the e-server on May 30, 2014).
The claimant told a DDS physician that the pain varies from day to day. She also reported
rashes on her face and upper chest, and debilitating fatigue. Clinical findings and treating
records support the claimant’s pain, credibility and subjective complaints under 20 CFR
404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 96-7p (1996).
Step Four/RFC:
The weight of the evidence indicates that the claimant can perform, at most, only a
narrow range of sedentary activity due to the combined severity of her physical and
mental impairments, with emphasis on limitations that result from chronic pain and
fatigue. Other physical impairments include: fibromyalgia (Exhibits 9F; 23F); rheumatoid
arthritis (Exhibit 10F); irritable bowel syndrome involving bouts of acute abdominal pain
(Exhibits 9F/13, 60; and 21F, for example); esophageal reflux (Exhibits 9F; 21F);
hyperthyroidism with nodules and neck pain (Exhibits 25F/16; 26F); sinusitis (Exhibit
4F); history heart palpitations and dyspnea, a Holter Monitor in March 2012 showing
some ST changes with increased heart rate (Exhibits 8F; 20F); and vision issues
involving vitreous degeneration, left eye, astigmatism, and presbyopia (Exhibit 29F).
A DDS physician examined the claimant on March 18, 2013, and did not note any
physical limitations (Exhibit 16F). Nevertheless, the claimant reported intermittent
parasthesis of both hands at that time. Two months later, physical therapy records
indicated hand limitations (Exhibit 22F). Moreover, Sally Doe, APRN, at **
Rheumatology, noted that the claimant would be limited to occasional gripping and fine
manipulation in a form dated February 1, 2013. That source also noted that the claimant
would be further limited in her capacity to sit, stand, walk, lift and carry (Exhibit 15F).
Mentally, the claimant’s major depressive disorder and anxiety result in nonexertional
limitations. She visited the emergency room on December 1, 2011, due to suicidal
thoughts (Exhibit 5F). She began treatment at ** Behavioral Health
Center in October 2012. She was initially assigned a GAF of “50”, indicating serious
symptomatology per the DSM IV (Exhibit 13F.) The claimant’s mental condition
appeared to worsen in early 2013. She was assigned a GAF of only “42” on January 15,
2013, and was rated with a GAF of “48” in September of that year (Exhibit 27F/3, 20).
She also reported variable sleep, stating that she would sometimes be awake all night
long (Exhibit 27F/33).
Step Five:
Due to the combined effects of the claimant’s physical and mental limitations, she can
perform only a narrow range of sedentary activity at all relevant times. As a younger
individual, the claimant is therefore disabled pursuant to Section 201.00(h) of Appendix
2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, and Social Security Rulings 96-8p and 96-9p.
Respectfully submitted:
Billy Bob Thornton
Attorney for the Claimant
|
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 7, 2015 12:33:47 GMT -5
Well, I was with you until I saw the FIBRO. Kiss of death.
Okay, jk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 13:48:03 GMT -5
Well, I was with you until I saw the FIBRO. Kiss of death. Okay, jk. I once got stuck with a Fibro only case where the claimant stayed in bed all day reading books on Kindle. That doesn't sound like a disability, it sounds like a vacation! Obviously, the judge agreed and denied the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Georgia on Jan 11, 2015 18:05:47 GMT -5
I used that program and remember getting several OTR's that way.
|
|
