When you appear before a Social Security judge for a hearing, there are four possible outcomes:

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.