New York Social Security Disability Lawyer Blog

On November 14th Andrew Biggs wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times pointing out that Disability is the fastest growing piece of the Social Security pie and implying both explicitly and implicitly that many recipients are unworthy. Mr. Biggs suggests that allocating more money to the CDR's (Continuing Disability Reviews) would be wise and would save money by assuring that only the disabled remain on the rolls.

His assertions contain two major fallacies. First, as one who has practiced Disability Law since the 1980's I can assure you that Congress did NOT pass "looser eligibility standards in the 1980's." What actually happened then was that the governors of all 50 states (the states being contracted by Social Security to do the initial determinations and CDR's) were so appalled by the Reagan Administration's attempt to limit the number of new beneficiaries and squeeze those already receiving benefits that they refused to execute the policies set forth by that Administration. In response, Congress passed laws that clarified the current methods and how they were to be applied.

The second fallacy in Mr. Biggs' argument is that costs have risen because increasing numbers of claimants hire attorneys, causing the SSA to lose two-thirds of claimants' appeals against denied benefits. The reason that the SSA loses two-thirds of the appeals of initial claims is because the State Agencies still routinely deny valid claims. Mr. Biggs suggests giving more weight to the agency's expert witnesses; these so-called experts, who are paid by the SSA, routinely give cursory or worse examinations.

According to Mr. Biggs' own figures, disability payments make up only 18% of the total Social Security expenditures. By Social Security's own numbers, only 5% of the people whose claims are reviewed lose their benefits. That means that 95% of the people who are receiving benefits deserve them. It is astounding for Mr. Biggs to suggest that tightening up regulations would get rid of unworthy beneficiaries, thereby significantly reducing expenditures.

Finally, it should not go unsaid that two-thirds of the people who are denied by Social Security never even bother to appeal. The real tragedy is the number of people who are disabled and deserving of benefits, but who are too discouraged to fight for them.

Lew Insler

On this Veterans' Day, we all honor those who have bravely served in the armed forces in both their accomplishments and their sacrifices. Unfortunately, sometimes those sacrifices include debilitating medical conditions for which the veteran may be entitled to VA Disability Compensation. This is a benefit paid to a veteran based upon injuries or diseases incurred while on active duty and includes exacerbations of pre-existing conditions while on active duty. So long as the veteran has been discharged under non-dishonorable conditions, he or she may apply for these benefits.

The amount paid is based upon the degree of disability represented by a percentage of service-connected disability. Additional amounts can be paid for especially severe disabilities such as the loss of a limb, and may even be paid to family members. The application process may be commenced by filing a VA Form 21-526 and by presenting discharge papers, dependency records, and medical evidence.

As with Social Security Disability benefits and Long Term Disability benefits, medical documentation is especially important to establishing the degree of disability as well as the degree to which an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition may be service-connected. As such, good medical documentation is one of the most important evidence that can be presented to maximize the veteran's potential benefits amount.

Brian Anson

Congratulations to Lew Insler, whose latest article, "Disability Alphabet Soup: Sorting Through the Maze of Legal Abbreviations" was just published by DisabilityWorld.com. It reviews a long list of legal abbreviations, mostly disability claim related, and explains how each one may relate to your case. Written in a light and humorous style, the article is written for anyone who is confused by all the legal mumbo-jumbo surrounding his or her disability claim.

I met a very pleasant prospective client yesterday who had been working steadily as a performer for many years. I asked him for a copy of his earnings statement to determine what his monthly benefits would be and I was surprised to see that despite having worked for many years, he had zero earnings throughout that period. When I questioned him about this, he told me that when he was a child, his manager had set up a corporation to which all his income was paid. That corporation, in turn, purchased investments to support him in his retirement. Well, the Stock Market crashed and the housing market tanked and now my client has no assets and the only benefit I might be able to get for him is Supplemental Security Income.

It never ceases to amaze me that qualified CPAs and financial planners fail to consider the possibility that their clients will become disabled!

Even though what this manager did was probably legal, it was a horrible disservice to my client. While I understand the urge to minimize income for tax purposes, there is absolutely nothing to justify posting ZERO earnings for many years. To my mind, the cost of buying the absolute minimum Social Security Disability benefits is cheap. A person pays from 7.5% to 5% payroll tax on earnings of about $5000 per year. Seriously, even including regular federal, state and local income tax, it's still paying under $1000 for the year. The value of being eligible for Medicare alone should offset the cost.

While I understand that self employed people earning very little might really need to take advantage of this ability to take deductions in order to make ends meet, I'm talking about those financially successful people who figure out legal ways to avoid paying any tax. Ultimately, as with my prospect today, the gamble that everything will be fine doesn't pay off and, at best, I can help obtain SSI for them. At worst, regardless of the degree of disability, there's nothing I can do for them.

Gabriel Hermann

About a year ago, the Poughkeepsie Social Security Office and the Hearing Offices moved to a new shared space. Now there is a common waiting area, and while we wait for our clients' hearings we see and hear everyone who is waiting to speak with Social Security for every other reason.

Frequently you can hear both sides of the conversation, and while the Social Security employees are unfailingly courteous, at times their answers are not as complete as the inquiry demands.

But the one thing that jumps out at me is how often people are shuttled back and forth between Social Security and the County Department of Social Services before an issue is resolved. The reasons this happens are many, but the occurrence is so frequent that it seems like there needs to be a "hot line" between the two agencies.

Here is my suggestion: either have each office designate a specific person to handle the interface, or have both offices be ready, willing and able to do a conference call whenever the need arises. If they created such a system, the time savings would be instant and significant. When a problem can be solved with one visit and one call, instead of multiple visits to each location, each agency is freed to handle other work more expeditiously.

Obviously one agency is Federal, while the other is County, and that may cause this to be harder than it seems. But the need is so obvious that I am going to ask a friend who runs a local Social Security office what she thinks about it.

Lew Insler