Years ago, Social Security judges regularly asked claimants about unemployment applications at hearings, but I rarely hear these questions anymore.  I advise my clients that if a judge does ask if they have filed for unemployment, an appropriate answer would be to state that he/she would like to work and would be willing to try any type of job even though his/her medical or mental health condition is likely to create performance or attendance issues.

Further, I tell my clients that, in my opinion, one or more “unsuccessful job attempts” serves as compelling evidence that one is motivated to work but simply does not have the capacity to do so.  Interestingly it has been my experience that an unsuccessful work attempt of 3 months or less can help your case, whereas a work attempt over 3 months can create problems – take a look at my YouTube video about work attempts and trial work periods for more about this topic.

Recently, this issue of unemployment applications came up – this time in an unfavorable decision I received in a case I tried before a judge who is normally more likely than average to approve claims.  My client in this case had some significant mental health and physical medical issues but he came across as arrogant and lazy to the judge who clearly did not want to give him any benefit of the doubt.

One of the issues that the judge discussed in this case was the unemployment issue – here’s how the judge addressed it in the decision:

Pursuant to a November 15, 2006 memo from then Chief Administrative Law Judge Frank A. Cristaudo, “receipt of unemployment benefits does not preclude the receipt of Social Security disability benefits.”  Judge Cristaudo further discusses the issue:

…application for unemployment benefits is evidence that the ALJ must consider together with all of the medical and other evidence…For instance, the fact that a person has, during his or her alleged period of disability, sought employment at jobs with physical demands in excess of the person’s alleged limitations would be a relevant factor that an ALJ should take into account, particularly if the ALJ inquired about an explanation for this apparent inconsistency.

Accordingly, ALJs should look at the totality of the circumstances in determining the significance of the application for unemployment benefits and related efforts to obtain employment…

In this case, my client did not have a good explanation for why he was unable to remain employed.   Not only were his post-application work attempts at jobs with significant physical demands but he testified that he quit those jobs because they were “dead end jobs” and “boring.”  At no point did he testify that he quit because the physical or mental requirements of those jobs was beyond his capacity.

Here are the conclusions that I am taking from this decision and other experience:

• if you file for unemployment benefits while you are also filing for Social Security disability, you should be prepared to explain yourself (this is where you would discuss your desire to try to work despite your issues)
• if your record shows work attempts at jobs which have physical requirements in excess of the limited physical capacity you are claiming for Social Security purposes, these work attempts could be used against you
• if you try to work and quit, you should focus on problems you had performing the tasks of your job or with reliability, not because you were bored or not making enough money
• work attempts after applying for benefits can function as helpful evidence but if you work too long (i.e., more than 3 months) or if your reasons for leaving are not directly related to your alleged impairment, those work attempts will be used against you.

I just had my second hearing with administrative judge and wanted to add a very brief fact into testimony and was wondering if it is acceptable to write the judge directly.   I do have a lawyer, but I am unsure that some of my letters of issues that I want to clarify are not being seen by the judge.

by ProgressOhio under CC BY  with wpseopix.com

.

Here are my thoughts:  first, if you have a lawyer I think that any communication from you needs to come through your lawyer.  Judges generally do not accept direct communications from disability claimants – more likely than not, the judge’s office would return your submission to you, and, most likely copy your lawyer with a form letter advising you to use your lawyer to submit all documents.

Second, unless the information you want to add is extremely significant I would hesitate to try to update your hearing testimony.  Social Security judges are very busy and when you try to add a document after the record has closed at your hearing, it will require someone at the hearing office to manually pull your file.  This could result in a delay in the issuance of your hearing decision.  Further, judges usually “close the record” after the hearing so it is doubtful that your added information would be considered anyway.  You have had two hearings – I suspect that your judge has a fairly clear understanding of the facts of your case.

I would discuss with your lawyer what the best options are here.   If the “very brief fact” is extremely significant and your lawyer agrees that it makes sense to try to reopen the record, then he can try to do so in a post-hearing brief or submission of evidence.   On the other hand your lawyer may advise you that the hassle factor for the judge outweighs the importance of the information and he may advise you to let the matter rest while you wait for a decision.

I have no doubt that I could present the same client and the same arguments to two different judges in the same hearing office and win an approval on one case but a denial in the other.   Social Security actually publishes statistics setting out the number of approvals and denials by judge – some judges approve as few as 30% of the cases they hear, while others approve 65% to 70%.

While some variation in approval rates would be expected, I think that a system where your odds go from 30% to 70% depending on the judge suggests a significant problem.  In my view, judges whose approval or denial rate exceeds the national or regional average by a certain percentage should be reviewed by their superiors.

This problem is compounded by the standards used by the Appeals Council (the level of appeal following a hearing denial).  Generally the Appeals Council will not reverse a judge’s decision if that decision arose from the judge’s procedurally correct evaluation of the evidence.  In other words, if the judge used the proper standard of law, the Appeals Council will not disturb that judge’s conclusions.

Often judges deny cases because they did not find a claimant to be “credible” or believeable.  Credibility is a very subjective concept.  How can an appeals judge decide that the trial judge made an improper conclusion about whether you were believeable.

Earlier this year, however, several lawyers and their clients filed a class action lawsuit against several Social Security Administrative Law Judges alleging systemic bias by those judges.   The case, which was filed in Queens, New York, alleges that five judges intentionally and consistently maintained a hostile hearing environment designed to deny claims wrongfully.  The suit seeks to bar these judges from hearing cases and to give claimants denied by these judges another chance to present their claims to different judges.

The Queens lawsuit is just beginning, but it will be interesting to see if the plaintiffs are successful, and if news of this lawsuit prompts changes in the attitudes of judges throughout the country who deny a higher than average number of cases.

In the past, this judge had the practice of announcing his favorable decisions – in other words, he would tell my client “I am going to find you disabled and award benefits.”   This time, however, he closed the case without saying anything.   After the recording equipment was turned off, he asked my client to leave the room but asked me to stay.  He then explained that “I have been told by the chief judge that I am no longer allowed to announce when I am going to grant a case.  I think this is a ridiculous policy as your client and thousands like her have been waiting for years, but I can no longer announce my decisions.”

Although my judge did not explain the reasons for this change in policy, I suspect it has to do with the nature of Social Security hearings.  The Social Security Administration is an agency that is part of the executive branch of government, rather than the judicial branch.  As such, the procedures, including rules of evidence and trial procedures are not the same as the procedures used in judicial proceedings that you might find in a state or federal court.

In state and federal courts, you find baliffs and court personnel who provide security to judges.  In Social Security hearings, there is no formal security other than a sole security officer who performs a brief security check of claimants and witnesses when they enter the hearing office waiting room.

The Washington Post recently ran a story entitled Judges in Disability Cases Increasingly Face Violent Threats that discusses this problem.  According to this story, Social Security documented 80 threats to disability judges and staff over the past year.  No doubt some of these threats arose from a claimant’s frustration at the delays, while some may have come from claimants upset that their claims were denied.   I can only imagine the frustration of a claimant who waits 2 years to appear before a judge, and who feels rushed and disrespected by a busy and perhaps distracted judge, and who ends up with a denial notice that essentially calls that claimant a liar.

I know that many of the judges who I see regularly are equally frustrated at the lack of staff and resources to do their jobs.  Unlike state court judges who have some degree of control over the procedures in their courtrooms, Social Security judges are subject to the processes set by a very bureaucratic and often inefficient Social Security Administration.  In my experience the judges get most of the blame for delays but, in fact, are often the least culpable party.

Since Social Security already faces major budget problems, I suspect that the last thing Commissioner Astrue wants to hear is a call to use limited financial resources to hire more security personnel rather than hearing assistants or judges.   Obviously it is difficult to control truly unbalanced people, but I think that SSA could reduce the frustration levels among the vast majority of claimants simply by creating systems or policies that provide dates or date ranges in which decisions are forthcoming.  Even better, I would like to see SSA move towards a system where claimants could log in to a secure location to see status updates.

Universities of all size seem to be able to offer online information about the status of college applications, receipt of materials and expected dates of decisions – and just having this information available offers some comfort to anxious teenagers – I see no reason why Social Security cannot offer the same courtesy to the hardworking men and women who have paid into the Social Security system.

Joel Ban

Attorney Joel Ban, a Utah lawyer who handles both Social Security disability and Veterans Disability claims recently posted a concise and informative article on his blog describing the similarities and differences between the two programs.  Joel points out that a VA disability rating of 70% or higher can help your Social Security claim – this confirms my experience that Social Security judges will give weight to VA disability findings.

Joel was kind enough to give me permission to reprint his article in its entirety, which I have done below.

This article is an overview of the highlights of the major topics for Veterans who have both Veterans Disability claims as well as Social Security Disability claims. A lot of Veterans may have both Social Security and Veterans Disability Claims going on either at the same time or may have received one benefit before applying for the other. VA compensation, aka service connected disability is not based on income so you can definitely receive VA compensation and Social Security Disability (SSDI) at the same time. There is also VA pension which is a needs based program, very similar to Supplemental Security Income (SSI). VA pension will be paid to Veterans if they have very little or no income and are disabled based on non service disabilities. It is possible to receive SSI and VA pension at the same time. Based on your circumstances its best to qualify for both VA compensation and Social Security Disability since they generally are the more generous benefits, however its important to be aware of these other needs based programs.

Major Differences between the Programs

Major differences between Social Security Disability and Veterans Disability is that you don’t need a total disability in order to be eligible for VA compensation. In fact, most Veterans who receive VA compensation do not receive a total disability rating. Veterans can receive a compensable rating as low as the 10% level and can have a rating as low as 0%. In many cases it makes sense to go for a 0% rating even though its not compensable. The reason for this is that it will mean that the Veteran at least has a service connected disability that will likely deteriorate into a more serious problem and later morph into a compensable disability. Many Veterans have trouble proving service connection but with a 0% rating the Veteran will have already crossed this hurdle. Social Security Disability, conversely does not compensate claimants based on a partial loss of employability. You are either disabled or not disabled under this program.

Another major difference between the two programs is the treating physician rule. In Social Security law once it has been established that a claimant’s physician is a “treating physician” that medical professional’s opinion is given deference. This can be the difference between winning and losing a SSD claim. However, in VA law it can be difficult to get a treating physician to give a positive opinion, especially if the Doctor works for the VA, but even if they do the opinion is not given deferential weight since the VA may consider that physician biased and is not given any special weight. See White v. Principi, 243 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This case explained that the treating physician rule conflicts with an important VA principle that decisions be based on the entire file so as not to give any particular evidence extra weight.

Does getting benefits in one Program help get Benefits under the other?

So the question becomes does having one benefit make one’s case for the other any better? Overall, the answer is yes, but it depends. If you are the recipient of a very high VA rating (70% or higher) than your chances for success on your Social Security Disability claim are quite high. This is because another federal agency has already found that you are either incapable of work or you are at a level where full time work would be very difficult. One advantage many Veterans with high disability ratings is that while VA only considers service connected disabilities the SSA will consider all impairments whether they are service related or not.

Because of the similarity between a VA finding of unemployability and what it means to be disabled under the social security disability program, it is the rule in four circuits that such VA disability ratings are entitled to “great weight.” See McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2002); Chambliss v. Massanari, 269 F.3d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 2001); Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914, 921 (11th Cir. 1984); and De Loatche v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 148, 150 n.1 (4th Cir. 1983). One circuit court has said that VA disability ratings were entitled to “substantial weight.” Kane v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 1130, 1135 (3d Cir. 1985). SSR 06-3p says that the decision and the evidence used to make the decision “may provide insight into the individual’s mental and physical impairment(s) and show the degree of disability determined by these agencies based on their rules.

Unfortunately, if you are disabled under SSA rules, the VA may not give this decision as much weight since its not usually clear whether this decision is based on service connected or non service disabilities. Most Veterans have a wide array of both types of disabilities and so the VA will be quick to attribute total disability to a host of non service disabilities. They usually are required to make specific findings on what disabilities prevent employability. In this case it may become important for a Veteran to hire a Vocational Expert to support their total disability claim so they can specifically attribute unemployability to service related disabilities. However, it is definitely recommended that the VA be provided with the entire SSD file and decision even though the VA has a duty to request it since this could provide key evidence for your VA claim. Brown v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 444, 448 (1992); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 370-72 (1992); see also Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532, 538 (1994).

Other Important Things to Know

In the Veterans Disability program although as mentioned above a Social Security Disability decision is given no special deference the VA will be required to consider SSD records. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) the VA lists the Social Security Administration as one of the agencies from which they are required to obtain relevant records. See Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 67, 73-74 (1996) (“As part of the Secretary’s obligation to review a thorough and complete record, VA is required to obtain evidence from the Social Security Administration, including any decisions by the administrative law judge, and give that evidence appropriate consideration and weight;” citing Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 372 (1992). The SSD file is especially critical in VA claims for total disability for individual unemployability. Since both situations require consideration of whether the claimant or Veteran can work the SSD file is especially relevant. Under the VA Duty to Assist the VA will have violated that duty when they fail to request the SSD file. Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002) (VA violated the duty to assist by failing to obtain Social Security records when it had actual notice that vet was receiving Social Security benefits).

A Social Security claims for survivor benefits based on the death of a Veteran also constitutes a VA claim for death benefits. They are said to be received by the VA at the same time they are received by the SSA.

I want my client to understand the hearing procedure so he can focus on what he needs to say.  The less uncertainty about the process – the better.

In Atlanta, which is my primary area of  practice, we have two live hearing offices and one video hearing location.   Between these hearing offices, there are around 20 judges that I see on a fairly regular basis and a few more that I see less frequently.  While every judge has his or her own style of conducting hearings, I have noticed one trend – judges seem to be relying more on me (the attorney) to ask the direct examination questions.   This may not be the case in every hearing office or every attorney, but this is what I am seeing.

In my view, having control of the questioning is a positive development because I can better prepare my client for his hearing.   I know what I will want to ask, and here are the areas of questioning that I cover.   In any case, whether I ask the questions or the judge asks the questions, there is certain information that every claimant should know and be able to discuss clearly and accurately – there is no reason to be surprised by any of this:

Personal background

• state your full legal name and social security number
• state your mailing address
• how tall and you and how much do you weigh?
• how far did you go in school and have you had any education or vocational training beyond high school?

Work background

• are you now working?
• have you tried to work since your onset date?
• describe your unsuccessful work attempt(s) – who was the employer, what did you try to do, how long were you able to stay and why were you unable to remain on that job?
• identify the last job you worked prior to your onset date – what were your job duties and what were your dates of employment?  why did you leave this job?
• what was the job before that – what were your job duties and dates of employment.  Why did you leave this job?
• going in date order, identify your past work going back for the past 15 years

Medical issues

• the medical record suggests that you have been diagnosed with __________ how does this condition/disease affect your capacity to work?
• how long have you had this disease/condition?
• when did it start and how has it progressed?
• if you were going to describe __________ to someone who was not familiar with this disease/condition, how would you explain what it is like to live with it?

Specific activity limitations (if applicable)

• how long can you stand before you have to sit down?
• how long of a break must you take before you can stand/walk again?
• how long or how far can you walk?
• how long can you sit before you have to stand up and move around
• if you had a job that required standing and walking and you could take a break every ___ minutes, how many minutes or hours total during an 8 hour workday could you stand and/or walk?
• if you had a job that required sitting and you could take a break every ___ minutes, how many minutes or hours total during an 8 hour workday could you sit?
• how much can you lift on a frequent basis – frequent meaning at least 2/3 of a workday?
• how much can you lift occasionally – occasionally meaning up to 1/3 of a workday?
• how much can you carry on a frequent basis – frequent meaning at least 2/3 of a workday?
• how much can you carry occasionally – occasionally meaning up to 1/3 of a workday
• are you able to bend, crawl or stoop?
• can you safely climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds?
• do you have any balance or other issues that would prevent you from working at unprotected heights?
• do you have any need to take unscheduled bathroom breaks? if so, why and how often?

Activity limitations arising from non-physical problems (i.e. mental health or pain)

• do you have any need to take other unscheduled breaks (i.e. crying spells)?  if so, how often?
• do you have any trouble getting dressed, or dealing with personal hygiene?
• do you have any issues getting along with family, friends, co-workers or supervisors?  If so, please describe these problems?
• do you have any memory problems
• do you have any problems with concentration
• do you experience pain – if so, where in your body?   when your pain is at its worst, how bad is it (use scale of 1-10)  how often is your pain at that high level?  do you experience  pain at a lower level?  how often?  does this lower level pain interfere with activities
• are there activities/hobbies that you used to enjoy that you can no longer do?

Drug and alcohol use (if applicable)

• the record indicates that you have had some trouble with alcohol use/marijuana use/street drug use.  is that still a problem?  when was the last time you used?  what type of program did you attend to address this problem?

This is not intended to serve as a list of every question that you may be asked.   However, at a minimum, you should be able to answer the above questions.  There is no excuse, for example, if you are surprised by the question:  “how far can you walk?”  The wrong answer is “I have never really thought about it – I just don’t know.”  The right type of answer is “I can walk to my mailbox, which is about 20 yards.  Because of the pain in my back, I have to stop and lean against a wall for about 5 minutes before I can walk back.  I always walk with a cane because I am unsteady on my feet.”

My “big picture” point here is simple – you have to prepare for your hearing.  Judges are busy and they don’t have a lot of time.  Preliminary matters like your work background and education should not eat up valuable hearing time.  I have seen instances where a judge will not include a limitation in his hypothetical question to a vocational expert because the claimant (my client) was so vague about his symptoms.

Judges understand that your symptoms may not follow a rigid schedule – for example if you experience seizures, and the question is “how often do you experience major seizures?” the answer may be “as many as 4 in a bad month and at least 1 every month, but on average 2 bad seizures a month.”

As a rule, it is not a good idea to answer:

• I don’t really know
• it depends
• sometimes
• not very much
• not very far
• not too long
• its hard to say

Instead, discuss with your lawyer how to offer a truthful answer to an “it depends” situation.  The more specific you can be, the better your results will be.

Your onset date (called your Alleged Onset Date or AOD by Social Security) represents that date that you allege that you became disabled.  Usually your AOD will be the day after you last worked, although in some instances I have been able to argue for an AOD that was two or three months prior to my client’s last day of work if my client had changed from full time to part time, if the job had become a “make work” situation or if my client was missing days or parts of days.

Similarly, I have tried cases in which the AOD was several months after the last day of work.  This happens when a person is laid off because his employer is cutting staff and the medical evidence shows that the employee’s disability began at some point after the layoff.

In general, however, as rule of thumb, the last day of work is a good choice for your Alleged Onset Date.

Why, then, would a judge change your onset date?  Usually, a Social Security judge will try to associate your onset date to a specific medical treatment record.  For example, if the basis of your disability is back pain and an MRI showing a herniated disc is dated September 28, the judge may choose September 28 as the onset date.  Obviously in this example, your disc was herniated on September 27 and probably on August 27 and July 27 as well, but September 28 is a date on which there is objective evidence of a medical problem consistent with your testimony.

In other cases, a claimant may choose an onset date going back 5 or more years, sometimes long before that claimant stopped working.  In these cases I recommend to my client that we amend the onset date proactively, at the beginning of the hearing or in a written pre-hearing memo.  I believe that judges appreciate attorneys and claimants who are prepared to narrow the issues and to avoid wasting time.

If the judge was to randomly select another date, such as July 27, the Appeals Council could reverse the decision on the basis of an absence of evidence.  Unfortunately, for some judges a claimant’s testimony is not enough if there is no other evidence supporting that testimony.

More and more often, I am seeing Social Security judges proposing an amended onset date during a hearing.  In such a situation, I will ask to step outside with my client to discuss.  Usually, I can predict when this type of thing may happen and I will discuss a possible onset date change with my client during out pre-hearing conference.

Whenever I sense that a judge wants to amend the onset date, I will take a close look at the exhibit file to identify my client’s “date last insured” (also called his DLI).  The DLI represents that last date that a claimant is insured for Title II disability purposes.  If the onset date is changed to some date after the DLI, then that claimant would not be eligible for SSDI benefits.   SSDI insurance requires (in most cases) work for 5 out of the 10 years prior to onset.  As such, coverage usually extends about 5 years after you stop working.  In any case, SSA calculates the DLI and includes this date in the Exhibit file.

If the judge proposes an amended onset date to some date after the DLI, I will usually not recommend that my client accept the proposed amended onset date, even though I know that by refusing the judge’s offer, the case will most likely be denied and we will have to deal with the Appeals Council.

You can read the case study on my Georgia Social Security disability web site.

I own a condo in central Florida.  My parents live in north Florida near the Georgia border.  I plan on moving to Macon, Georgia (Macon is about 100 miles south of Atlanta in the middle of the state).   Should I file now?  Should I file now and use my parent’s address?  Should I wait until I move to Macon to file?

Here are my thoughts: I would advise you to file now and to use your current address as your home address.  If you are concerned that your mail may not get forwarded you can use your parent’s (permanent) address.  In general it is not a good idea to wait to file.  If you wait you may lose the right to claim some of your past due benefits, or in a worst case scenario, your coverage for Title II benefits could run out.  If you are not working, and expect to be out indefinitely, I generally advise potential clients to file sooner rather than later.

Now – what about the location where you would file?  At the initial and reconsideration level of appeal, your case will be processed by a State Agency adjudicator.  Adjudicators follow fairly rigid protocols and I have not seen any documentation to suggest that an adjudicator in one state is more or less likely to approve a claim than an adjudicator in another state.  Those statistics may exist but I have never seen then.

The initial and recon appeal will eat up between 6 months and a year, by which point you would presumably be in Macon.  When you move you would notify Social Security and your file may be transferred to a State Agency adjudication office nearer to where you live.  Then again, it might not be transferred.  I think it is certainly possible that filing an address change, thereby triggering Social Security to move your file could add to a delay in the processing of your case, but my experience has been that the State Agency adjudicators are expected to complete their evaluation within a set period of time.  I don’t know that having the file moved will significantly add to a delay.  This is especially the case now that Social Security disability files are electronic – physical files are no longer involved so transferring a case is an electronic process.

The biggest wildcard when you change venues will involve the hearing offices.  Some hearing offices house judges who approve very few cases.  Other hearing offices tend to trend more favorably to claimants.   On the other hand the tendencies of the specific judge assigned to your case are much more important than the hearing office statistics.  You can research statistics about the ratios of approval by specific judges.  Local lawyers who practice in a particular hearing office can also be a good source of advice.

Ultimately I don’t know that I would spend a lot of effort “judge shopping.”  If you have a good case with compelling medical evidence and support from a treating physician, you stand a good chance at winning, while weak evidence will not convince even a judge who tends to favor claimants.  Further, if you ask Social Security to change your hearing office venue at the last minute you will face  delay as hearing calendars are often filled months in advance.  If you hire one lawyer for location 1, then switch, you may end up paying more than 25% of your past due benefits as lawyer 2 will want to be  paid.

At the very least, if you are thinking about hiring a lawyer in central Florida, let  him or her know about your possible move – you want to make your case less complicated, rather than the other way around.

1. you will be approved
2. you will be denied
3. your case will be continued to another date for a supplemental hearing
4. the judge will issue a “partially favorable” decision

Over the past couple of years I have noticed an increase in the number of partially favorable decisions I am receiving.  I think this is because my clients, especially low income clients, do not have access to regular medical care and judges are using consultative exam reports to move the alleged onset dates.

Here is an example of what I mean:  a couple of weeks ago, I tried a case before a judge who is generally considered to be very reluctant to approve cases.  At the time of the hearing my client was a month shy of her 52nd birthday.  She had a 10th grade education and past work as a short order cook.  She alleged disability due to uncontrolled diabetes, numbness in her feet and hands, vision issues and pain.

She last worked 3 years previously, when she was 48 years old.

In reviewing this case, I saw it as a “grid rule” case.   Grid rule 201.10 provides that a 50 year old claimant with less than a high school education, semi-skilled work but no transferable skills who was limited to sedentary work due to an exertional limitation would qualify for disability.

My client had very little money and had last seen a doctor almost 2 years previously.   In addition to the older medical records, there was a consultative examination report from February, 2008 that supported my argument.  My client turned 50 in October, 2007.

At the beginning of the hearing, I advised the judge that we were prepared to amend our onset date to my client’s 50th birthday in October, 2007.

I just received the decision and what did the judge do?  He issued a partially favorable decision, approving my client as of February, 2008 – the date of her consultative examination.   I think that any reasonable observer would recognize that my client’s condition did not change between October and February.  The net result is only 2 months of past due benefits – but that means about $1,500 to my client.

In my view, the judge’s actions were absurd and perhaps a little mean spirited.  During the hearing he made it known that he was not happy with the claimant’s pack a day smoking habit (he noted that if she saved the money she spent on smoking she could afford to visit her doctor).

The point here is that when you don’t find a way to go to your doctor, or enlist the help of a treating doctor to identify your work limitations, you may find that your judge will pick a date later than the onset date you alleged.  In fact, I know many judges who will always choose onset dates that correspond with a particular medical report.

I think that tying an onset date to the date of a medical report can be a logical choice but such a practice should not be applied mechanically as it was in this case.

You need to be aware of this tendency and make every effort to develop a thorough and convincing medical evidence file so you won’t be subject to what could be the arbitrary choices of your judge.