Generally speaking, a person must prove that they are at the end of their working life in order to get Social Security disability benefits. That may not technically be true, but it seems to be the practical reality.
In most cases, if there is any kind of work that a person could perform, disability will be denied. For example, if you are found able to do the work of a toy stuffer, ticket taker, sack mender, worm catcher or egg breaker, you may be denied benefits under federal regulations.
It is very difficult to prove that an individual cannot perform ANY type of work, using objective medical evidence.
I have heard that there is a doctor somewhere in my state who opines that nearly all of his patients are disabled--and they nearly all get on disability. "Dr. _______ is making a judgment call that if you have a particular back problem and a college degree, you're not disabled. Without the degree, you are." http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
What's wrong with this story? In reality, the "judgment call" must be made by Social Security decision makers, not by the doctor. In a hearing, an administrative law judge will take sworn testimony from a vocational expert, then the judge will make the decision as to how the claimant's education, age, past work experience and residual function capacity affect his ability to perform work. According to federal regulations, Social Security decision makers have the freedom to ignore the doctor's opinion and deny claimants as they see fit. The decision about who is disabled and who is not disabled is "reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security" (SSR 96-5(p). Doctors do not get to decide who is disabled. Doctors certainly do not get to interpret a person's education level in determining whether his back pain equates to disability or not. Here is a wonderful (or tragic) example of journalistic misunderstanding of how the disability adjudication process really works.
The moral of the story is this: If you are an applicant for Social Security disability, be prepared to prove that you are unable to perform any type of full-time work because of a physical and/or mental impairment supported by objective medical evidence. That is a very high burden of proof and the denial rates are climbing by the minute. The nose is in the air and I hear a stall warning in the cockpit as the jumbo jet of denied cases climbs into the thinner and thinner air. Prepare well, my friend. And remember, the administrative law judge in consultation with a vocational expert will decide how your education plays into whether or not you are disabled. Doctors? Nope. Only in the mind of NPR.
In most cases, if there is any kind of work that a person could perform, disability will be denied. For example, if you are found able to do the work of a toy stuffer, ticket taker, sack mender, worm catcher or egg breaker, you may be denied benefits under federal regulations.
It is very difficult to prove that an individual cannot perform ANY type of work, using objective medical evidence.
I have heard that there is a doctor somewhere in my state who opines that nearly all of his patients are disabled--and they nearly all get on disability. "Dr. _______ is making a judgment call that if you have a particular back problem and a college degree, you're not disabled. Without the degree, you are." http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
What's wrong with this story? In reality, the "judgment call" must be made by Social Security decision makers, not by the doctor. In a hearing, an administrative law judge will take sworn testimony from a vocational expert, then the judge will make the decision as to how the claimant's education, age, past work experience and residual function capacity affect his ability to perform work. According to federal regulations, Social Security decision makers have the freedom to ignore the doctor's opinion and deny claimants as they see fit. The decision about who is disabled and who is not disabled is "reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security" (SSR 96-5(p). Doctors do not get to decide who is disabled. Doctors certainly do not get to interpret a person's education level in determining whether his back pain equates to disability or not. Here is a wonderful (or tragic) example of journalistic misunderstanding of how the disability adjudication process really works.
The moral of the story is this: If you are an applicant for Social Security disability, be prepared to prove that you are unable to perform any type of full-time work because of a physical and/or mental impairment supported by objective medical evidence. That is a very high burden of proof and the denial rates are climbing by the minute. The nose is in the air and I hear a stall warning in the cockpit as the jumbo jet of denied cases climbs into the thinner and thinner air. Prepare well, my friend. And remember, the administrative law judge in consultation with a vocational expert will decide how your education plays into whether or not you are disabled. Doctors? Nope. Only in the mind of NPR.
Comments
Post a Comment