|
|
Post by Top Tier on Feb 25, 2023 12:33:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by badger on Feb 25, 2023 16:20:18 GMT -5
All these articles highlight legitimate issues, while seemingly missing the mark when explaining the reason for the issue. This author cites to the ADA in the context of this individual's application.
"Yet under the Americans with Disabilities Act, long Covid does not always qualify as a disability. People have to prove that it "substantially limits one or more major life activities.""
The issue that claimant's will run into with long covid is showing that their symptoms will last at least a year. There is so little known about long covid and unfortunately for many claimant's there is little objective evidence contained in their telehealth visits. The long wait time may actually help them prove that their symptoms are a long term issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Feb 26, 2023 11:05:06 GMT -5
I think part of the "bashing" comes from SSA having the "lowest staffing levels in 25 years"...that's got to cause some problems on the front-end of the application process. I do not hear reps discussing many long covid claims, yet. However, I think the inevitable wave of long covid disability claims is sitting at SSA (on average 7 months to get to the application at the initial level). I think badger is right, the long wait may help establish a severe impairment. Part of the problem for OHO is that those with longterm covid claims, supported or not, will want an ALJ hearing. Nonetheless, once the Agency gets the 2023 hires trained and competent, I would expect the "bashing" to subside quiet a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Feb 26, 2023 11:58:15 GMT -5
WAPOST has been bashing us for the last couple years and there are other threads about some of the articles.
Personally, I haven’t seen many long covid cases. The one I did was remanded on own motion by our “disability mavens” at the AC for being non durational despite being on supplemental O2. It was a slam dunk FF with no indication that the O2 was temporary but you know the AC has to make their quotas on remands.
|
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Feb 26, 2023 12:03:41 GMT -5
One of the articles claimed a wait of over a year for an ALJ hearing after appeal. Is that accurate? If true, that is similar to when there was a massive backlog. I imagine COVID may have impacted that number but I’m surprised at the limited hiring given those timelines and the anticipated number of cases in the pipeline.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Feb 26, 2023 19:06:42 GMT -5
One of the articles claimed a wait of over a year for an ALJ hearing after appeal. Is that accurate? If true, that is similar to when there was a massive backlog. I imagine COVID may have impacted that number but I’m surprised at the limited hiring given those timelines and the anticipated number of cases in the pipeline. This can vary greatly by location. In my office, we are hurting to fill dockets so the wait times are relatively short (or as short as they can be when it takes time to work up cases, then have to schedule 90+ days in advance). The cases I see with long waits are the ones where the cl is unrepped and has no showed multiple times, or cases held up by the DO for one reason or another. |
|
|
|
Post by patiently on Feb 26, 2023 19:10:50 GMT -5
100% what I have observed. Those who want a hearing can get one very quickly and get their decision within 30 days. No idea what is going on downstream...
|
|
|
|
Post by valard on Feb 27, 2023 9:28:45 GMT -5
There are tremendous delays in the disability process right now, but they are at the state agency level, not at OHO. “In August, the backlog of claims reached 929,000, over 25% more than there were in September 2021.” www.cnet.com/personal-finance/social-security-disability-claims-wait-record-high-how-to-avoid-delays/Recent articles do focus on DDS, but the public doesn’t know what DDS is. The only real solution is more funding for DDS, but in the current environment, it is hard to see that happening. Something else that would help is skipping reconsideration, at least in the states with the largest number of cases backed up. But I don’t see the COSS as particularly focused on this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Feb 27, 2023 11:46:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by trekker on Feb 28, 2023 16:38:20 GMT -5
Right now the backlog is at DDS. In the state where I am located, it is taking DDS about 18 months to process applications and almost as long to process reconsiderations. Other states may not have quite as long of a wait but I helped claimants file applications in 2021 and they still do not have an analyst assigned. This is the first month in more than a year that I have had DDS actually send me documents for my clients to complete and return.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 28, 2023 18:20:29 GMT -5
Does anyone know, what percentage of cases end up with a different determination on reconsideration than they did on the initial level?
Assuming that is a very low percentage, if it really is an 18 month backlog at DDS for both the initial and the reconsideration determinations, then the agency really has to start allowing at least some claimants to skip the reconsideration stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Feb 28, 2023 19:07:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by toast4u on Feb 28, 2023 19:38:09 GMT -5
The disadvantage of skipping reconsideration is the claimant and/or rep may not have adequate time to develop the case. For instance, there will be no longitudinal record if the claimant applies for disability, has a recent AOD, and within a short timeframe finds themselves in front of an ALJ. Additionally, if a claimant is unrepresented, the case is developed during CEO at the hearing level. The hearing office then has to request DDS to obtain the evidence, further piling on their workload.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Mar 1, 2023 4:46:59 GMT -5
The disadvantage of skipping reconsideration is the claimant and/or rep may not have adequate time to develop the case. For instance, there will be no longitudinal record if the claimant applies for disability, has a recent AOD, and within a short timeframe finds themselves in front of an ALJ. Additionally, if a claimant is unrepresented, the case is developed during CEO at the hearing level. The hearing office then has to request DDS to obtain the evidence, further piling on their workload. This is helpful as I was curious as to why the Agency got rid of the protype states and no reconsideration level initiatives. In theory, getting rid of the recon level makes sense and often recon merely affirms initial level findings. However, practically speaking, I agree...I was very surprised to find out how little was in the record and the mess of a record the rep had to figure out at the initial and reconsideration levels until becoming a rep after being in the Agency for a while. Nothing is exhibited at initial and recon levels; a pet peeve of mine!  |
|
|
|
Post by AAmillennial on Mar 1, 2023 7:57:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Mar 1, 2023 8:54:37 GMT -5
Wow - SSA's getting a lot of attention! There was just a 4th Cir. case addressing medical opinions- ALJ used DDS over long standing treating source. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 1, 2023 11:02:37 GMT -5
The disadvantage of skipping reconsideration is the claimant and/or rep may not have adequate time to develop the case. For instance, there will be no longitudinal record if the claimant applies for disability, has a recent AOD, and within a short timeframe finds themselves in front of an ALJ. Additionally, if a claimant is unrepresented, the case is developed during CEO at the hearing level. The hearing office then has to request DDS to obtain the evidence, further piling on their workload. If it's taking 18 months to get an initial decision, then you are talking 2 years or more before the ALJ hears the case. That's long enough for a longitudinal record. And there would still be at least 3 months between the request for hearing and the hearing date for the rep to develop the record. Ultimately, what I'd envision is at least initially targeting certain claimants (I'm thinking based on age) and giving them the option to skip reconsideration. Maybe make it mandatory that they consent to a remote ALJ hearing if they want to do this, so as to allow maximum flexibility with scheduling. |
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Mar 1, 2023 11:25:39 GMT -5
The disadvantage of skipping reconsideration is the claimant and/or rep may not have adequate time to develop the case. For instance, there will be no longitudinal record if the claimant applies for disability, has a recent AOD, and within a short timeframe finds themselves in front of an ALJ. Additionally, if a claimant is unrepresented, the case is developed during CEO at the hearing level. The hearing office then has to request DDS to obtain the evidence, further piling on their workload. If it's taking 18 months to get an initial decision, then you are talking 2 years or more before the ALJ hears the case. That's long enough for a longitudinal record. And there would still be at least 3 months between the request for hearing and the hearing date for the rep to develop the record. Ultimately, what I'd envision is at least initially targeting certain claimants (I'm thinking based on age) and giving them the option to skip reconsideration. Maybe make it mandatory that they consent to a remote ALJ hearing if they want to do this, so as to allow maximum flexibility with scheduling. That's a good idea! |
|
|
|
Post by toast4u on Mar 2, 2023 18:30:07 GMT -5
SSA has many shortcomings but there are numerous issues in this article. My personal fave: "... it’s pretty easy to just deny a case and then move on.” The next article will be how the Agency pays too many individuals who are undeserving. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 2, 2023 19:08:55 GMT -5
SSA has many shortcomings but there are numerous issues in this article. My personal fave: "... it’s pretty easy to just deny a case and then move on.” The next article will be how the Agency pays too many individuals who are undeserving. I liked where the article talks about how the wrong person's medical records were being used, and the representative complaining about how appalling that is. While I obviously don't know details of that case- as a general rule who submits the medical records into evidence on represented cases? (Hint- it rhymes with schmepresentitive). |
|
