- 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.
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.
What are the standards used to evaluate drug and alcohol abuse in a Social Security or SSI disability setting? If an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) determines a claimant is not disabled based upon drug and alcohol abuse ("DAA"), the ALJ must go through the normal five-step sequential evaluation process, find them either disabled or not disabled, and then make a specific finding that drug abuse or alcoholism is material to the claimant's disability. Susan O'Malley discusses substance abuse and its effect upon your disability application The standard for materiality is whether the claimant would still be disabled if s/he did not abuse drugs or alcohol. If the ALJ finds that the claimant's DAA is material to her disability, then he goes through the five-step sequential evaluation process again to determine what her RFC would be without the DAA. If, after going through the sequential evaluation process without the functional impairments caused by the DAA, the ALJ finds that the claimant would not be disabled, then they are not disabled. Put differently, if the ALJ finds that but for the claimant's DAA, they would not be disabled, they are not disabled under the below cited law. Basically if the ALJ makes a finding that the DAA is material to the claimant's disability more likely than not there will be a decision of no disability a loss unless you have very compelling evidence that she would be disabled regardless of the DAA.
How Does Social Security, SSI Disability Look at Fibromyalgia? Social Security bases a lot of their evaluation of fibromyalgia on a person's medical treatment. A doctor needs to have reviewed the person's medical history, examined the person and done sufficient testing to eliminate other possible medical conditions that could be causing a patient's symptoms. SSR 12-2p. The medical records need to document a history of widespread pain and there needs to be at least 11 out of 18 tender points found on examination. SSR12-2p. They will also consider the presence of other symptoms often associated with fibromyalgia such as fatigue; cognitive problems; memory problems; difficulty sleeping; depression; anxiety; or irritable bowel syndrome.SSR 12-2p. Susan O'Malley board certified social security disability specialist Social Security is trying to determine whether the symptoms of Fibromyalgia interfere will a person's ability to work on a regular and continuous basis. Social Security defines a regular and continuous basis as eight hours a day five days a week or an equivalent schedule. SSR 96-8p. It may be helpful to keep a diary of the Fibromyalgia flare-ups. This diary can be shared with the doctor to let them know how the symptoms fluctuate. It may help with treatment. It can also be submitted to Social Security as evidence of how often Fibromyalgia would interfere with a person's ability to go to work. If the Fibromyalgia has resulted in depression or anxiety, it would be helpful to seek treatment from a mental health professional. A mental health professional's insight into the depression or anxiety can also be helpful in understanding why the symptoms interfere with a person's ability to work. Maintaining continuous treat to the best of your ability is also recommended. Fibromyalgia is largely evaluated on the basis of medical records. If there is less treatment, it can make establishing disability more difficult. If you have suffered with fibromyalgia and can no longer work, call O'Malley Tunstall today to speak with someone on Susan O'Malley's team.
O'Malley Tunstall, PLLC filed suit on behalf of Penny Hartman against Social Security for its denial of her disability benefits in 4:12CV46 Federal Court Eastern District of North Carolina. Federal District Court Judge Boyle found that Ms. Hartman suffers from severe psoriasis and arthritis. The psoriasis affects her ability to concentrate because of pain and discomfort. She has to wear loose fitting pajamas and bed room slippers because regular clothing causes additional pressure on the psoriasis making it crack and bleed. You can only file suit against Social Security after all administrative proceedings have been exhausted (application, reconsideration, hearing, review of hearing by Appeal's Council). Judge Boyle found that the questions asked by the Administrative Law Judge working for Social Security to the vocational expert did not include all of the limitations that Ms. Hartman suffers. "The purpose of hearing testimony offered by the VE is to assist the ALJ in determining whether there are jobs available in the national economy which the particular claimant can actually perform." (Order page 4 citing Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1989)) "The [question] pose by the ALJ must adequately convey to the VE the claimant's impairments that affect her ability to function." (Order page 4 citing Fisher v. Barnhart, 181 Fed Appx. 359, 364-65 (4th Cir. 2006) (unpublished)) Judge Boyle found "Given the extensive, severe and disabling nature of the Plaintiff's psoriasis, the [question] posed by the ALJ fails to sufficiently address the severity of the situation." (Order page 4). The case has been remanded for further development of the VE testimony and consideration by the ALJ of the full range of our clients medical limitations. Congratulations to our Social Security team and specifically Susan O'Malley for her excellent work on this case. Board Certified Social Security Specialist -- Susan O\'Malley For more information on Social Security visit our website.