DISQUS

Gordon Gates · 2 months ago

Tomasz, If you take a look at the Request for Reconsideration form used by the SSA (linK: http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-561.pdf), there is a place in the bottom section that is to be completed by the SSA... #2 states "Claimant insists on Filing" the appeal, and there is a check box for yes and no. The only reason I can think of for that section to be on the appeal form is because SSA employees are discouraging claimants from appealing. And, according to the statistics, it is working: http://www.socialsecuritydisabilitylawyer.us/bl...

TomaszStasiuk · 2 months ago

Hmm, I don't see too many Recon Requests in Colorado (since we don't use that step in disability cases -- although the Recon step is still used in cessation and overpayment cases). That language does not appear in the "Request for Hearing" forms.

I doubt that Social Security is institutionalizing discouraging appeals. I wonder what that language is for?

Steven Butler · 2 months ago

The "Claimant insists on filing" box is for those situations where an individual doesn't have a right to appeal, but insists on filing nonetheless. For example an individual that does not have sufficient work credits. A claimant is always permitted to file an appeal, even if there is nothing to appeal. The box on the Reconsideration form is basically an acknowledgement that the claims representative explained to a claimant that they do not have an appealable issue, but the claimant would not take no for an answer. Claimants also have an absolute right to file an application, even if they do not qualify (not enough work credits, working above SGA, don't meet financial criteria for SSI, etc).

I agree that Claims Representatives should not express opinions on whether an individual should appeal based on medical factors. It is always shocking to see how poorly claimants describe their impairments, and many times the individual ends up having severe impairments that they do not tell Social Security about that are not found until medical records are reviewed. Claims representatives passing judgment only on what they are told do not have the full picture.

Even if I can't help an individual, I still always advise that I am providing my opinion, and advise of appeals rights and encourage the individual to see another attorney or file an appeal on their own if they disagree with my opinion. Claims Representatives should advise claimants that are pursuing frivolous claims of their right to legal representation instead of passing judgment. I always explain to individuals that don't qualify, why they don't qualify, and try to clear up misunderstandings. I also don't want frivolous claims clogging the system because these will only cause legitimate claims to be processed slower.

Tom, as always a great post. This is an important topic to educate on. Thank you for starting this dialog.

Jeff McNair · 2 months ago

I have had a little experience with this. Actually, it appears the criteria is different upon appeal. A large percentage of initial request are supposedly overturned on appeal, so I would say to go for it! Whatever you do, don't reapply as benefits will start with the new appeal whereas if you appeal they start from the initial application date. At least that was the case when I assisted a friend with his appeal. We were able to get him eligible, and also receive benefits going back to his original application date.

TomaszStasiuk · 2 months ago

A large percentage are denied on the initial application and I am certainly not trying to encourage clogging the Social Security system with frivolous appeals. What bugs me is that it really is not the desk attendant's job to decide what is and is not a frivolous appeal. in Colorado, appeals in disability denial case go to an Administrative Law Judge.

The Social Security worker should not usurp the judge's authority to rule on an appeal.

Even in Reconsideration cases where the technician may well be the person who *will* make the next decision, it is still improper because the technician cannot know what new evidence may be developed during the appeal. Even if the technician made the right choice in denying the case initially, that does not mean that new evidence will not become available during the appeal that should change Social Security's mind.

Frankly, the horror stories I hear are not just that a Social Security technician is being negative about a claimant filing an appeal; it is that the claimant is refused, actually refused, the appeal form.

This is a violation of an individual's due process rights. An appeal is part of a process that includes the hearing, the Appeals Council, District Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals and yes, even the United States Supreme Court.

By stopping someone from appealing, the entire future of that case and ALL the appeal rights die right there.