Social Security Disability, SSI Judges must give Plaintiff's treating physicians controlling weight. Board Certified Social Security Disability Attorney Susan O'Malley recently argued a Federal District Court Social Security Disability, SSI case in front of North Carolina Federal District Court Judge Terrence Boyle. Judge Boyle, who has developed an incredible understanding of Social Security Disability law ruled that as Susan's client had additional information from her long term (4 year) treating physician that clearly contradicted the Administrative Law Judge's findings as to the client's ability to work on a regular and continuing basis, the client's case must be remanded for further findings in light of the treating physicians' determination. In Social Security Disability, SSI cases a doctor's opinion based upon a longitudinal history (long term) of treating a patient and who renders an opinion as to the diagnosis and residual functional capacity (ability to perform physical tasks) of a patient must be given great weight by the Judge. The client's doctor found that the she could not lift ten pounds, stand and or walk for 2 hours out of an eight hour work day and as this contradicted the Administrative Law Judge's prior opinion that the client could lift twenty-five pounds, stand or walk six out of an eight hour day the case must be remanded for further findings. Boyd v. Colvin 5:12CV785 EDNC. Practicing Social Security Disability, SSI law our law firm must always look for those cases that should be appealed to Federal Court. When choosing your Disability attorney, make sure that your attorney is capable and willing to appeal your case, if necessary, to the next level. Contact our office if you have any questions about how to appeal your Social Security Disability, SSI case.
O'Malley Tunstall is extremely happy to welcome Bruce Daughtry to our firm. We have worked against Bruce for years and are excited to now add him and his tremendous experience to our litigation, serious personal injury and social security disability, SSI sections. Joe and Susan have known for years what a strong advocate Bruce Daughtry is for his clients and are sure he will bring that passion to helping our clients. Bruce Daughtry Personal Injury and Social Security Disability, SSI Lawyer Bruce Daughtry was born in Ahoskie, North Carolina where he attended Hertford County public schools and graduated from Ahoskie High School. He graduated from Campbell University with a Bachelor of Business Administration. Bruce attended law school at Norman Adrian Wiggins School of law in Buies Creek, North Carolina and earned his Juris Doctorate in 1993. Bruce was admitted to practice law the same year. After graduation he returned to this home town of Ahoskie where he began his career practicing law, representing individuals and families in the District and Superior Courts of Eastern North Carolina. Later he focused his area of practice in civil litigation representing insurance companies and their insured in all levels of the North Carolina court system. Bruce has taken his extraordinary amount of trial and litigation experience gained by representing the insurance industry and uses it to fight for individuals' rights and maximize their recovery in their personal injury claims. Bruce has over 100 jury trials in serious injury claims. He is a member of the North Carolina Bar, the Nash County Bar, and the Seventh Judicial District. He is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of the Federal Court. He is a member of the North Carolina Bar Association and the North Carolina Advocates for Justice. Bruce lives in Rocky Mount with his wife, Cacky, and two children, David and William. He spends most of his free time on the field watching David and William participate in their sports activities. Bruce will handle serious personal injury, disability and social security disability, SSI cases. Visit O'Malley Tunstall, PLLC for more information on Workers' Compensation, serious Personal Injury and Social Security, SSI cases.
- Gather the Names, Addresses and phone number of the doctors that treat you.
- Make a list of all of your medications. Include the name, amount, how often you take it, what you take it for, how long you have taken it and the doctor who prescribes it.
- Make a list of the activities you can no longer do. See Worksheet.
- Make a list of your work history for the last 15 years. Include the years, name of employer and job duties.
- Keep all letters from Social Security.
- If you do not have insurance, apply for Medicaid and look for clinics in your area that will charge based on income or free clinics. List of free clinics by county.
- Follow the doctor's recommendations.
- Make a list of any other benefits you currently receive such as Medicaid or Veteran's benefits.
- Talk to your doctor about disability and whether they would support your application for it.
- Call our office if you have further questions about applying for Social Security, SSI or need assistance filling your application.
The Judge's Duty to Inform Claimant of Their Right to Counsel When a plaintiff is unrepresented at a hearing, the judge is obligated to inform them that they have the right to have counsel represent them. The judge should inform the unrepresented claimant that a representative can help prepare their case as well as present the case to the judge. When the claimant is mentally impaired then the judge's duty is heightened. The judge also has the duty to develop the record for an unrepresented claimant. If these duties are not satisfied, then the case can be overturned and remanded. Wiszowaty v. Astrue, 861 F. Supp.2d 924(N.D. Ind. 2012).
Recently Joe Tunstall successfully argued a Social Security case that had been worked on by Susan O'Malley and Amos Waranch in front of Federal District Court Judge Terrence Boyle who found that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing Social Security Disability cases must look at whether a claimant can perform a full range of work; which includes the ability to walk 6 hours out of an 8 hour day for light work. Lyons v. Colvin 4:12 CV 210. Susan and Maisey at Wags 4 Tags Judge Boyle determined that the ALJ erred when he failed to give any consideration for the lack of ability to walk for any considerable distance. In fact, the fact that the claimant could only walk for six minutes without getting short of breath was not considered relevant by the ALJ. Clearly this "walking test" given by the treating physician was relevant to the client being able to walk for 6 hours per day. Judge Boyle found that as the claimant could not perform light work, then under the law the claimant was disabled and ordered benefits. Susan and Amos have many hours trying, appealing and briefing the issues for this client. This case is ongoing and could, like Hines v. Barnhart, be appealed by the Government.
Recently Joe Tunstall successfully argued a Social Security case that had been worked on by Susan O'Malley and Amos Waranch in front of Federal District Court Judge Terrence Boyle who found that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing Social Security Disability cases must take into account witness statements and medication side effects when deciding permanent restrictions. Boddie v. Colvin 4:12 CV 221 Judge Boyle determined that the ALJ erred when failing to even discuss the testimony of third parties and explain why the testimony was or was not given weight. Judge Boyle used a case that Susan O'Malley had argued before him in 2005 called Hines v. Barnhart (upheld by the 4th Circuit) to determine that the vocational expert must be given a hypothetical that clearly sets out all the claimant's impairments and cannot merely "pick and choose" the what information will be asked of the expert. This case is ongoing and could, like Hines v. Barnhart, be appealed by the Government. Injury Lawyer -- Joe Tunstall
Social Security needs to gather quite a bit of information when they take a disability application from you. Our office can help you submit an application based on you work history and we would need the same information. Meet Susan O\'Malley, head of our Social Security Section. Social Security Administration (SSA) needs accurate contact information. This includes your mailing address and a phone number where you can be reached. SSA will need your work history for the last fifteen years before you stopped work due to your disability. You must include the name and address of the employer and your job title. SSA will also require a description of what you did on each job. SSA will need to know what the highest grade you completed in school. They will need the contact information for any healthcare provider that treats you for you health problems. This will include the doctor's name address and phone number. SSA will also need to know what the doctor treats you for and how long you have gone to that doctor. Social Security will need the list of medications you currently take. They will need the name of the medicine, the dose, what it does and who prescribes it to you. SSA will need to know about any marriages and divorces. They will want to know that date on which your medical conditions stopped you form working. This date may be different from the date the condition began. Susan board certified disability specialist Social Security will also need a brief description of how your health condition limits you ability to function. Social Security uses this information to determine whether you are unable to work on a full-time basis based on your age, education, skills form past work and the limitations caused by your health condition. It will help the application process go smoother if you already have this information gathered. Our social security attorneys have provided a list of the above.
Non-treating non-examining physician opinions are not good evidence in a social security disability claim. Social Security Disability Specialist -- Susan O\'Malley In most Social Security disability cases, the Social Security Administration uses medical consultants to review the record and issue opinions about a claimant's functioning at the initial and reconsideration levels of review. These physicians typically do not examine or treat the claimants, and base their opinions upon a review of medical records only. Social Security Disability application is stronger with a good letter from your doctor Federal Courts have ruled that "the opinion of a non-treating, non-examining physician based upon only a review of the record cannot constitute substantial evidence to support a finding of non-disability." Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 348 (4th Cir. 1986). A determination by a state agency non-treating non-examining physician can be substantial evidence, but only when it is "consistent with the record." Smith, 795 F.2d at 345 (citing, Kyle v. Cohen, 449 F.2d 489, 492 (4th Cir. 1971)). More recently, the Eastern District of North Carolina affirmed those rules of law in Mathis by Mathis v. Shalala, 800 F.Supp. 461, 463 (E.D.N.C. 1995). In general, greater weight is accorded to the opinion of an examining physician than a non-examining physician. Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1997); Ortega v. Chater, 933 F.Supp. 1071, 1074 (S.D. Fla. 1996)(citing Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1998)); see also, SSR 96-6p. These laws can be important to your disability case because a non-examining non-treating physician will not know as much about your condition as your doctors. You do not get to discuss your condition with these doctors and they do not get to see how credible your pain or disability is for themselves. In almost every disability case, these medical consultants review your records and issue opinions. Often, these opinions are the only items of opinion evidence available in a case, and they frequently underestimate the functional effects of a claimant's impairments and symptoms. The Federal Court opinions regarding how much weight a non-treating non-examining physician should be given reaffirm the value of a treating physician opinion to your disability case. When you have applied or are thinking about applying for disability, it is very helpful to talk to your treating doctors, psychiatrists, and other providers about whether they will support your disability application. By getting your treating physician to detail why you are disabled, you provide the judge with opinion evidence that is often contrary to the opinions of the medical consultants. As explained in the law cited above, when there is an opinion that is contrary to the medical consultants opinion, the medical consultants opinion cannot be used as substantial evidence to support a finding of non-disability. If you have any questions about treating source opinions, medical consultant opinions, or anything else regarding Social Security disability, please contact us.
Last month, National Public Radio's (NPR) This American Life and All Things Considered programs ran a story that we feel incorrectly portrayed Social Security Disability as a new American "welfare" program. The story, entitled "Unfit for Work: The Startling Rise of Disability in America," appeared to have a thesis: that the states are trying to improperly move welfare recipients onto the federal disability roles because of budgetary pressures. But when the facts and research did not necessarily line up with that preconceived thesis, the story employed disingenuous logic and dubious use of anecdote over statistics in order to prove that point regardless of the truth. Unfortunately, a number of blogs and forums picked up on the NPR story and made expanded and unwarranted attacks on the disabled and their advocates. In response, eight former Commissioners of the Social Security Administration wrote an Open Letter disputing the story. In that letter, the former Commissioners responded with detailed statistics to many of the spurious allegations raised in the NPR article. The NPR article made it seem like it was reasonably easy to be granted disability, relying upon anecdotal evidence. For instance, the NPR article makes it seem like a certain Dr. Timberlake in Hale County Alabama had the power to issue a binding recommendation that an individual be adjudicated disabled. Of course, a treating physician's opinion is valuable, but the article is misleading in how the Social Security Administration handles treating physician opinions. Also, the NPR article also makes a dramatic point that "nobody" is "defending the government's decision to deny disability." That is clearly false. The Open Letter responds to these dubious allegations in a calculated manner. First, they point out that disabled individuals are very ill, and that about 1 in 6 die within five years of receiving benefits. Without Social Security disability or SSI, most of these individuals would have essentially no option for sustenance and health care. Something that the NPR story failed to appreciate is that many of these individuals will not receive much in terms of Old Age Retirement Social Security benefits because of their medical conditions. Therefore, it is perfectly fair and morally justified to pay out benefits from the Social Security system earlier in their lifetimes. The Open Letter then points out the fundamental flaw in the NPR story: the standards for approval for benefits are very strict. Only about 40 percent of adult Disability and SSI applicants receive benefits after all levels of appeal. Why is that number so low? Because, contrary to the allegation in the NPR piece, there are numerous defenders of the government's decision to deny disability. The local district offices deny the majority of initial applicants, many of whom are ultimately granted disability before an Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judges themselves frequently err on the side of caution, i.e. not granting benefits, when adjudicating cases, and then the Appeals Council routinely denies appeals without review. When the disability applicant finally appeals to Federal Court, the first time a non-Social Security employee looks at the application, the government does, in fact, hire a lawyer to defend their position. The allegation that there is "nobody" defending the government's decision to deny disability is just false. It is instructive to look at this point from another perspective. The NPR story attacks disability advocates for being part of the "disability industrial complex." However, our job would not exist if the disability process was more permissive and fair to applicants. Disability advocates are almost all paid on a contingency fee arrangement, where the advocate collects the fee only when the disabled individual wins his disability case. A person does not need to hire a disability lawyer until after his initial claim is denied. It then takes over a year to have a hearing before a disability judge. During that time, the disability advocate will develop the individual's case by helping to collect evidence (like medical records, school records, and doctors' opinions) and then will prepare the individual for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Only after getting an expert advocate to help develop their case, many of these individuals who were initially denied are ultimately granted disability. Without the advocate, they would never get the benefits they need to survive. In many cases, these benefits were paid for by the claimant's out of their paychecks, and Social Security disability functions as an insurance system. To attack the advocates is unjust. Finally, the NPR story makes a point about the increase in disability beneficiaries, and attempts to link that increase to unemployment and other economic factors. The Open Letter from the Commissioner points out that this rise in beneficiaries was "predicted by actuaries as early as 1994 and is mostly the result of two factors: baby boomers entering their high-disability years, and women entering the workforce in large numbers in the 1970s and 1980s so that more are now 'insured' for Disability based on their own prior contributions." The Commissioners correctly point out that the NPR story sensationalized the growth of the disability roles, and fails "to tell the whole story" about Social Security disability. With an ageing population and higher percentage of the population working through middle-age, there is bound to be an increase in disability. The article ignores these obvious demographic points in favor of a thesis regarding unemployment and welfare, and it badly misses the mark. We here at O'Malley Tunstall are proud of our work on behalf of disabled individuals. The world has dealt a difficult hand to many of our disabled clients, and every day we fight for their benefits that were wrongfully denied. There will always be challenges with any system of disability adjudication, and there will always be disabled individuals who need expert help managing that system. No matter what, we will stand by the injured, infirm, and the ill to ensure that they get the benefits they deserve. Social Security Disability Specialist -- Susan O\'Malley If you or a loved one has been denied Social Security disability or has questions about the disability process contact us.
Sequestration's mandatory budget cuts are scheduled to take effect on Friday, March 1, 2013. The sequestration cuts are not supposed to effect those already receiving Social Security Disability payments. Those persons that are still in the application and hearing stages may be affected depending on the length of time of the sequester. Sequestration could result in the loss of over 5,000 more Social Security Administration employees. This reduction in the number of SSA employees will be felt at the field and hearing offices. Field office operations may eventually be impacted resulting in longer waits to be seen by staff to handle applications and less total applications taken on any given day. A delay in initial decision of applications may also result due to the lack of staff to review applications and make recommendations. Finally as staff is reduced, hearings may be delayed resulting in additional time waiting for a hearing decision due to lack of staff to process the decision, man the hearings and write the decision. We certainly hope that the Federal Government will address these issues quickly, but the projection above could result in delays for those most in need of assistance.