SSDI.....My Personal Experience

[(S)ame(G)ood(M)oney]

I applied online in December 2012 but used the date they started my MEB as the onset date (23 October 2012). My local Social Security Office called me within a month and asked for me to have my supervisor write a memo stating that my only duties were reporting for accountability and going to appointments. They used this to justify my onset date. Around mid-February 2013, I received a letter in the mail disapproving my SSDI request. So I went online and filed an appeal based on my doctor increasing my medications and adding additional medications for my condition. However, the appeal was denied about a month later. In late March, I got a lawyer and filed for an administrative hearing which the Social Security Department scheduled for October 2013. My lawyer also filed an “On the Record Request.” It was a request asking the judge to approve my SSDI without going through with a hearing. However, it was disapproved and we went forward with the hearing. The hearing consisted of me, my lawyer, the judge, a vocational rehab specialist, and a court recorder. It was very informal and the judge asked me a lot of questions concerning what caused my conditions, how it affected my ability to work, and my work history. The vocational rehab specialist was there to take notes and advise the judge if I could work in any capacity at all. In the end, the judge indirectly told me that I was approved. He wouldn't come out and say it. He just said to my lawyer, "I am going to expedite your client's claim." A month later (a few days ago), I received an approval letter stating I would be contacted by another part of the Social Security Department to finalize everything. I didn't wait, I called them up. The lady I spoke with said my paperwork was at the claims payment office and I would receive payment within 30 days. I logged in on the website earlier today and I saw that my back pay was dispersed today and what my monthly amount would be, and the projected date of payment for each month. Now, the only thing I have to do is finalize my dependent children claims so that my monthly payment will increase and I will get back pay for them too.
What I have learned in the process:
1) Patience – Unless you have something that falls within their bluebook (http://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/) and everything is documented perfectly, you will be disapproved right off the bat (90 days). Your appeal will be denied (30-60 more days). Then you request an administrative hearing (scheduled 6 months later).
2) Make sure that you use the date they started your MEB and provide a letter stating all you do is go in for accountability, check email, and go to medical appointments. They actually gave me an example memo that another Soldier used. The reason for this is because they know that a Soldier found unfit must go through the entire MEB process that takes months and they have no control over it. Secondly, you can’t receive any money until your 6th full month of disability. So this helps you get a head start. “USE YOUR MEB INITIATION DATE………DON’T USE YOUR DISCHARGE DATE” because you will screw yourself out of money.
Example:
2012
23 Oct – MEB initiated
13 Dec – Applied for SSDI online
15 Feb – SSDI disapproved
15 Feb – File an appeal online
23 Mar – Appeal denied
23 Mar – Obtained a lawyer and filed for an Administrative Judge Hearing
10 Jun – Received date for hearing
1 July – Requested an On the Record Request
01 Sep – Officially Retired from the Army
15 Oct – Admin Hearing
15 November – Received approval letter
27 November – Checked online and status changed showing 8 months of back pay (April – Nov), an online letter stating my projected monthly amount, and the monthly date I will be paid. I Called right away and asked about my dependents and was told I had to go to my local office or do it through a telephonic appointment. So I will get money for my dependents and back pay for them too.

3) Your monthly payment will be based on your work history and by law the max you can get from SSDI is $2,5xx (http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/how-much-in-ssd.html). This includes your dependents. Whatever you get, each of your dependents get 50% of that amount. You can’t get anything for a wife that works.

Example: If you get $1800, each child will get $900. So if you had two kids, you would be at $3,600 but the cap per household is $2,533. Crazy! Also, they will tax your Social Security if you have other income (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10153.pdf read page 7)

4) By law a Social Security Lawyer won’t get paid if you don’t get paid. If they win your case, the max they can get by law is 25% of your back not to exceed $6,000. You will need a lawyer in my opinion to have your paper work straight for the hearing and interact with the judge in their lingo.
5) If you are disabled….”DON”T GO GET A JOB” while waiting on the hearing or approval. The judge will automatically believe that you can work since you went and got a job.

6) Don’t participate in the VA’s vocational rehab…….they (Social Security) will ask and check. Remember that vocational rehab is designed to provide you with training to help make you employable.

7) It’s okay to use your post 911. It will keep you busy and occupied since you can’t work……plus that is $714 a month part time and the BAH for an E-5 without dependents for your zip code area full time.

8) They will contact anyone you list on your applications and ask them questions about your conditions
Served 23 years, 10 months faithfully.......
Army Medical Retirement Rating: 75% (really 90% but max by law is 75%)
VA Rating: 100% permanent
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI): Maxed

 

[...]

Example: If you get $1800, each child will get $900. So if you had two kids, you would be at $3,600 but the cap per household is $2,533. Crazy! Also, they will tax your Social Security if you have other income (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10153.pdf read page 7)

Mostly good info, and congrats on your approval.

However, your example is not correct. The total family amount can be no more than 150%. So, in your example of an $1800 entitlement and 2 children. You would get your $1800 (100%), and your 2 children would split the $900 (50%). So each child would get $450 a month.

If you had 5 kids, that $900 would be split 5 ways.

Also, using your MEB date is fine, but that could short a lot of people out of $. I have not even started my MEB yet and have been receiving SSDI since June. I was approved on my initial application without having to appeal and I used my injury date as the date I became disabled. So they back payed me to Sep of the previous year.

MEB is an administrative process. The date most people become disabled us the date they were injured or became ill. You just need to be sure it is documented.

 

[(S)ame(G)ood(M)oney]

Mostly good info, and congrats on your approval.

However, your example is not correct. The total family amount can be no more than 150%. So, in your example of an $1800 entitlement and 2 children. You would get your $1800 (100%), and your 2 children would split the $900 (50%). So each child would get $450 a month.

If you had 5 kids, that $900 would be split 5 ways.

Also, using your MEB date is fine, but that could short a lot of people out of $. I have not even started my MEB yet and have been receiving SSDI since June. I was approved on my initial application without having to appeal and I used my injury date as the date I became disabled. So they back payed me to Sep of the previous year.

MEB is an administrative process. The date most people become disabled us the date they were injured or became ill. You just need to be sure it is documented.

Good catch. You are right about the percentages and the money split between kids. Also, great point on when to apply for disability. Shame on me for assuming you can't start it til your MEB starts.....LOL. It definitely is smart to start it using the date when you were first diagnosed or somewhere close to that date. I'm gonna update my post. Thx.

 

[(S)ame(G)ood(M)oney]

How do you edit a post???

 

[TSgt Twitch]

Good info, but also need to add, even if you have a condition that falls under the blue book, but the SSDI medical examiner does not believe it to be severe enough they still apply grid rules and you will be denied for Age/education.
( in my case 1 fake hip, 1 busted second hip, and loss of use of upper extremitie due to use of cane AND spondylolisthesis/cervicalgia with spinal stenosis) but they did not have enough medical evidence to support the second hip or see why I still required the use of a cane initially, even though the SSDI doctor that examined me stated I used it and explained the complications of my left hip. I really do think that a lot of first time appliers who get approved whil ein the MEB process are A. really lucky, B. include PTSD and TBI with sufficient medical evidence to support it or C. have blue book issues and have a "lower education" history, are over 40, or some such.

I know in my case, the doctors all agreed I could not do any of my old work, could not due anything I was currently qualified for, but due to my Age and education history should be employable. (which is funny because whereas I have 160
+ semester hours, I am technically a high school drop out.)

 

[Warrior644]

Mostly good info, and congrats on your approval.

However, your example is not correct. The total family amount can be no more than 150%. So, in your example of an $1800 entitlement and 2 children. You would get your $1800 (100%), and your 2 children would split the $900 (50%). So each child would get $450 a month.

If you had 5 kids, that $900 would be split 5 ways.

Also, using your MEB date is fine, but that could short a lot of people out of $. I have not even started my MEB yet and have been receiving SSDI since June. I was approved on my initial application without having to appeal and I used my injury date as the date I became disabled. So they back payed me to Sep of the previous year.

MEB is an administrative process. The date most people become disabled us the date they were injured or became ill. You just need to be sure it is documented.

Good catch. You are right about the percentages and the money split between kids. Also, great point on when to apply for disability. Shame on me for assuming you can't start it til your MEB starts.....LOL. It definitely is smart to start it using the date when you were first diagnosed or somewhere close to that date. I'm gonna update my post. Thx.

A point-of-fact in reference to the maximum family amount for SSA disability compensation benefits as annotated on the SSA website at URL http://www.ssa.gov/dibplan/dfamily.htm as follows:

"Each family member may be eligible for a monthly benefit of up to 50 percent of your disability rate. However, there is a limit to the amount we can pay your family.

The total depends on your benefit amount and the number of family members who also qualify on your record. The total varies, but generally the total amount you and your family can receive is about 150 to 180 percent of your disability benefit.

If the sum of the benefits payable on your account is greater than the family limit, the benefits to the family members will be reduced proportionately. Your benefit will not be affected."

Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."

Best Wishes!

 

[Warrior644]

How do you edit a post???

Welcome to the PEB Forum!

From my experiences on the PEB Forum, upon posting a message or reply message, there exist a pre-determined amount of time to perform either an "Edit" function, a "Delete" function, or a "Report" function which is located on the bottom of the posted or reply message.

To that extent, other PEB Forum members may be able to provide additional feedback for performing an "Edit" function on a posted/reply message after the expiration of the aforementioned pre-determined time limit.

Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."

Best Wishes!

 

[nwlivewire]

A point-of-fact in reference to the maximum family amount for SSA disability compensation benefits as annotated on the SSA website at URL http://www.ssa.gov/dibplan/dfamily.htm as follows:

"Each family member may be eligible for a monthly benefit of up to 50 percent of your disability rate. However, there is a limit to the amount we can pay your family.

The total depends on your benefit amount and the number of family members who also qualify on your record. The total varies, but generally the total amount you and your family can receive is about 150 to 180 percent of your disability benefit.

If the sum of the benefits payable on your account is greater than the family limit, the benefits to the family members will be reduced proportionately. Your benefit will not be affected."

Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."

Best Wishes!

The SSA disability system, even though it has laws & rules to follow & go by, it seems like many employees on the bottom tiers who initially evaluate your claim -well, they don't always interpret or follow their own rules accurately.

My SSDI claim is a case in point.

Applied for SSDI at age 53 - my husband was dead, I was a widow of an SSA recipient, I came back with injuries from Iraq and was not going to be able to return to work in my Boilermaker construction trades occupation (mobilized National Guard).

From the very beginning, I met every single grid qualification to be approved for SSDI, but was still denied twice and had to appeal to the SSA SSDI "Judge" and hire a lawyer.

Took almost two years from start to finish to be granted my SSDI. Not one single bit of additional evidence did my lawyer need to have in my SSDI case - it was all there in the very beginning. It was so cut and dry she was actually surprised I hadn't already been approved. A slam-dunk case for her to argue - easy money for the lawyer - money that I paid to the lawyer from the proceeds from my retro SSDI payment - money that ought to have remained in my account and not have gone into a lawyer's pocket to begin with, nor should my case have had to go that far up in the system, either.

It's this kind of crapola that gets me. I think if SSA makes these kinds of errors and denies for no good reasons or for shaky reasons at best - and if these "incompetent" lower tier SSDI/SSA employee decision-makers denials to claimants get overturned by their own SSDI "Judge", then I think the SSA should pay for the lawyer & not the SSDI awardee/recipient.

This would help to speed things up and get disabled people the benefits they have earned more quickly.

nwlivewire

 

[Warrior644]

The SSA disability system, even though it has laws & rules to follow & go by, it seems like many employees on the bottom tiers who initially evaluate your claim -well, they don't always interpret or follow their own rules accurately.

My SSDI claim is a case in point.

Applied for SSDI at age 53 - my husband was dead, I was a widow of an SSA recipient, I came back with injuries from Iraq and was not going to be able to return to work in my Boilermaker construction trades occupation (mobilized National Guard).

From the very beginning, I met every single grid qualification to be approved for SSDI, but was still denied twice and had to appeal to the SSA SSDI "Judge" and hire a lawyer.

Took almost two years from start to finish to be granted my SSDI. Not one single bit of additional evidence did my lawyer need to have in my SSDI case - it was all there in the very beginning. It was so cut and dry she was actually surprised I hadn't already been approved. A slam-dunk case for her to argue - easy money for the lawyer - money that I paid to the lawyer from the proceeds from my retro SSDI payment - money that ought to have remained in my account and not have gone into a lawyer's pocket to begin with, nor should my case have had to go that far up in the system, either.

It's this kind of crapola that gets me. I think if SSA makes these kinds of errors and denies for no good reasons or for haky reasons at best - and if these "incompetent" lower tier SSDI/SSA employee decision-makers denials to claimants get overturned by their own SSDI "Judge", then I think the SSA should pay for the lawyer & not the SSDI awardee/recipient.

This would help to speed things up and get disabled people the benefits they have earned more quickly.

nwlivewire

Indeed, it's definitely unfortunate how each State's DDS of the SSA makes their medical decision whether based upon the GRID rules fully, partially, or not at all supportive via the disability evaluation under the Social Security Listing of Impairments.

Moreover, it's interesting that the SSA maintains and publishes statistics for each State's SSA disability compensation benefit's approval and denial rates; it definitely makes me wonder what is the true value of its publication (e.g., who truly benefits?)?

Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."

Best Wishes!

 

[Busyarmymom]

The SSA disability system, even though it has laws & rules to follow & go by, it seems like many employees on the bottom tiers who initially evaluate your claim -well, they don't always interpret or follow their own rules accurately.

My SSDI claim is a case in point.

Applied for SSDI at age 53 - my husband was dead, I was a widow of an SSA recipient, I came back with injuries from Iraq and was not going to be able to return to work in my Boilermaker construction trades occupation (mobilized National Guard).

From the very beginning, I met every single grid qualification to be approved for SSDI, but was still denied twice and had to appeal to the SSA SSDI "Judge" and hire a lawyer.

Took almost two years from start to finish to be granted my SSDI. Not one single bit of additional evidence did my lawyer need to have in my SSDI case - it was all there in the very beginning. It was so cut and dry she was actually surprised I hadn't already been approved. A slam-dunk case for her to argue - easy money for the lawyer - money that I paid to the lawyer from the proceeds from my retro SSDI payment - money that ought to have remained in my account and not have gone into a lawyer's pocket to begin with, nor should my case have had to go that far up in the system, either.

It's this kind of crapola that gets me. I think if SSA makes these kinds of errors and denies for no good reasons or for shaky reasons at best - and if these "incompetent" lower tier SSDI/SSA employee decision-makers denials to claimants get overturned by their own SSDI "Judge", then I think the SSA should pay for the lawyer & not the SSDI awardee/recipient.

This would help to speed things up and get disabled people the benefits they have earned more quickly.

nwlivewire

I agree! I see so many of the same situations, I really think Social Security and the IRS gets kickbacks from the BAR Association. I have had three fellow Soldiers, in the span of 1 month have to hire an attorney for court, and they were approved within minutes of questioning. EASY slam dunk for the attorneys. It is sad and insane!

 

[grizz13]

I agree! I see so many of the same situations, I really think Social Security and the IRS gets kickbacks from the BAR Association. I have had three fellow Soldiers, in the span of 1 month have to hire an attorney for court, and they were approved within minutes of questioning. EASY slam dunk for the attorneys. It is sad and insane!

If you think this is worthy of an investigation call your congressman and explain that there is something hinky going on at that office.

 

[Busyarmymom]

Maybe one day I will. But, it happens so often everywhere, it seems to be standard operating procedures. :-(

 

[nwlivewire]

Maybe one day I will. But, it happens so often everywhere, it seems to be standard operating procedures. :-(

That's my take on this piss-poor system, too.

Seen this happen many times - cases that ought to have been approved taking years to approve, and the SSDI recipient pays THOUSANDS for a lawyer they NEVER needed to have in the first place.

And of course, I doubt all these SSDI lawyers are gonna say anything about it, for to admit to how easy these "slam dunk" cases are, and HOW MANY of these "slam dunk" cases they process - well, they would be slitting THEIR own financial throats and have to go practice another type of law and REALLY earn their pay. I don't see any of these lawyers "blowing the whistle" - do you?

It's a racket - plain and simple. And as long as there continues to be incompetent decision-makers in the lower tiers who face NO penalties for their INABILITIES to make accurate and proper and TIMELY decisions, then the entire financial burden will continue to fall and will continue to be shifted to those LEAST able to foot this financial burden - the permanently disabled SSDI recipient.

Talk about kicking people when they're down....

HOLY COW!

V/R,
nwlivewire

 

[Busyarmymom]

What I am confused about is this, the lower levels have a "blue book" to go by, so when they deny a case, I do understand that. But, when it hits the courts, and we have to hire an attorney, yet the case is decided within a few minutes, with the same paperwork which was at the lower levels, there is something very wrong. When each state seems to run their SSDI differently from each other (when SSDI is a federal benefit), and the percentages are different. I just don't understand some of these processes. I just don't.

 

[nwlivewire]

What I am confused about is this, the lower levels have a "blue book" to go by, so when they deny a case, I do understand that. But, when it hits the courts, and we have to hire an attorney, yet the case is decided within a few minutes, with the same paperwork which was at the lower levels, there is something very wrong. When each state seems to run their SSDI differently from each other (when SSDI is a federal benefit), and the percentages are different. I just don't understand some of these processes. I just don't.

I'm wondering if the lower decision-makers understand some of these processes.

They're the ones - with "Blue Book" in hand - they're the ones where the disconnect is occurring.

And I can see what is going to happen - something will eventually happen to cause some narrow ray of light to be shed in this dark area of the "system".

Then, a long-term Congressional Investigation, Committees & Commissions being formed, and on and on and on.

A few years later, maybe an obvious and easy minor reform or two that ANYONE could have found to fix years before they get passed and a few more years before they get implemented. MAYBE....

Meanwhile, the ship keeps sinking and the band plays on....

Heaven forbid accountability should be put into the correct places with any REAL intent and bite.

nwivewire

 

[Busyarmymom]

YES. I agree. Sigh. Nothing in life is easy. Nothing.

 

[Jason Perry]

Just wanted to throw in a few comments here- and, I am pointing out that as a lawyer, I have an interest in earning money from my profession. So, my views may be colored by that- however, I think I am right (but, doesn't everyone?). I don't take the posts personally- I get the instinct and the thought process behind them. But, overall, I think they are aimed in the wrong direction. I would venture that it is not the lawyers- or "too many lawyers," as the problem. It is not enough lawyers and/or limitations on what they can earn that keeps much of the system(s) from being "fixed."

As a starting point, I believe that economic "incentives" govern most actors (I originally was going to write "folks'" instead of "actors- but, I include the government and businesses in this paradigm, so actions/choices. (Perhaps the extremely rich, and, in some cases, the very poor, do not always act rationally- for different reasons). I could be dead wrong. And, I know that there are bad lawyers, those who don't care about clients and are only in the field to make a "buck." (Though, at the same time, this criticism is somewhat counter-intuitive/strange/unfair....I probably won't go too far into this, but lawyers generally seem to be held to some strange standard where they are criticized for earning money; most people don't hold the same view about most other professions, I think. Folks are not generally up in arms about their real estate agent, carpenter, car mechanic, grocer, bartender, health club owner, charging for or earning a fee. What really strikes me as odd, as a consumer like everyone one else of services is that doctors and insurance companies don't seem to raise the same kind of ire about their charges. I have some thoughts about why this might be, but, it is way too much to go into in a post like this).

From the very beginning, I met every single grid qualification to be approved for SSDI, but was still denied twice and had to appeal to the SSA SSDI "Judge" and hire a lawyer.

Took almost two years from start to finish to be granted my SSDI. Not one single bit of additional evidence did my lawyer need to have in my SSDI case - it was all there in the very beginning. It was so cut and dry she was actually surprised I hadn't already been approved. A slam-dunk case for her to argue - easy money for the lawyer - money that I paid to the lawyer from the proceeds from my retro SSDI payment - money that ought to have remained in my account and not have gone into a lawyer's pocket to begin with, nor should my case have had to go that far up in the system, either.

I don't know any details of @nwlivewire 's case. (And, I don't practice law in SSDI arena- I am familiar with many of the issues as they relate to military disability and VA cases, though). My first point, though, is while I agree that it is a shame that money had to spent on a lawyer to get what seems to be an outcome that should have been forthcoming originally, the lawyers are not making the big money here. My point is that people/society should look at who has the most to gain out of any "system." Do you want to know my instinct here? I will tell you- the winner is the US government.

A few other points before I (hopefully) lead the reader to the conclusion that I think is correct. First, SSDI lawyers are limited in their fees to $6000 or 25% (whichever is less) of recovery for a claim. (Before I forget, this puts an incentive on cases not being taken until the $6k mark is met....because, should there be a claim that is not yet to the $6k mark, if the work is the same, the lawyer actually loses out- this issue becomes much more apparent in the context of VA claims). So, who gains by not having lawyers charge on the "free market" (meaning they charge a fee and the client either accepts or rejects based on the fee quoted)? I think that the government does, in several ways. Many claimants will not pursue a lawyer in the first case after a denial. Who wins? The government, by not having to pay what in many cases will be a lifetime benefit. The relative winner here between government and lawyers? The government by a landslide.

It's this kind of crapola that gets me. I think if SSA makes these kinds of errors and denies for no good reasons or for shaky reasons at best - and if these "incompetent" lower tier SSDI/SSA employee decision-makers denials to claimants get overturned by their own SSDI "Judge", then I think the SSA should pay for the lawyer & not the SSDI awardee/recipient.

YES!!! This is exactly my point on the "incentives." If the government had to pay or had some sort of penalty (maybe interest on wrongfully denied claims) then I think you would see more correct initial decisions.

That's my take on this piss-poor system, too.

Seen this happen many times - cases that ought to have been approved taking years to approve, and the SSDI recipient pays THOUSANDS for a lawyer they NEVER needed to have in the first place.

Again, mostly I agree. Though, I think a lot of folks would be surprised about how what seems like a clear cut case needs some "tweaking" from a lawyer (though, I am not sure that a "lawyer" is always needed- I am not personally opposed to some sort of "accredited lay representative" in these cases). I think the main point that I agree with is the issue of "who pays," (or should pay) for services. The incentive under the current system is for the government to deny claims- and make people fight for their due benefits. My view is that the incentives should be aligned to make the government not want to wrongfully deny claims- i.e., to make their be some sort of disincentive to making errors.

And of course, I doubt all these SSDI lawyers are gonna say anything about it, for to admit to how easy these "slam dunk" cases are, and HOW MANY of these "slam dunk" cases they process - well, they would be slitting THEIR own financial throats and have to go practice another type of law and REALLY earn their pay. I don't see any of these lawyers "blowing the whistle" - do you?

Absolutely not. But, I go back to the idea that folks generally seem to hold lawyers to a standard they don't hold other professionals to...let's take doctors (and hospitals) for an example. If you go to a doctor, he diagnoses you with "early cancer," treats it, and you are in remission/cured, few folks say, "well, that was an easy case- the doctor should not get paid." With hospitals, they sometimes charge ridiculous amounts (with a wide and non-transparent spread) for things like aspirin, at $20 a tablet for something that goes for about 4 cents on the market.

What are the lawyers to do in these cases? Say, "no, I don't want to get paid what the law allows?) (Though, as a more complex point, this might be correct). My point here is that if there were not any money to be made at all for the lawyers in SSDI cases, then no one would take these cases. (Why? Because they could earn more doing divorces, DUI cases, personal injury cases, or working on fee basis in criminal cases). See more on this point below.

It's a racket - plain and simple. And as long as there continues to be incompetent decision-makers in the lower tiers who face NO penalties for their INABILITIES to make accurate and proper and TIMELY decisions, then the entire financial burden will continue to fall and will continue to be shifted to those LEAST able to foot this financial burden - the permanently disabled SSDI recipient.

Talk about kicking people when they're down....

I think you hit it on the head- it is racket- but not on the part of the lawyers. The racket is the government who gets to deny cases and gets away with it without any consequences. Who is to be blame here? The lawyers? I think not (and here is why). The "big money" in the law is in corporate work ($1200/hour fees- which are written off by the companies as a business expense); class action law suits (where you have multi-billion dollar pay days for the lawyers, with coupons or discounts for the class members); product liability cases (where you have the lawyers taking at least 30% and, after fees and costs, upwards of 60% in some cases), or personal injury cases (where a minimum of 30% is expected, but with costs and fees, the percentages climb much higher). Why do you see "reform" and action in a lot of these arenas? Because there is big money to be made by major law firms in these cases. And there is a big payday that is paid by the party at fault. Notice a difference between major money-making fields of law and disability areas (I am talking SSDI, military disability cases, and Veterans cases)? Yup, there is no "huge pay day" for the lawyers AND the government is not substantially (or in any real way) penalized for making errors in cases. What is the result? A dearth of lawyers fighting the cases in a "big" or "systemic" way. If it were tobacco litigation and there were billions to be made (and money poured into political action committees, or advocacy groups) then you would likely see big changes in disability law issues. But, the lack of money (or incentives for lawyers- really, for big law firms- to get involved) coupled with both an incentive for the government to deny claims without a discentive for it doing so, means that you see huge injustices played out every day.

This is problematic for a few reasons. First, without a "big money" payout for law firms and lawyers, there is no money to fix the problems.

Though this may sound mercenary (or perhaps, "self interested," on my part), the point is that I think it is not the lack of lawyers being involved in the system that is the problem. It is the exact opposite- if there were monetary incentives for lawyers to pursue these cases- and not to compete with other possible (big) money making cases, then you might see substantive changes and real solutions to the problems that face military folks, Veterans, and disabled folks.

I agree! I see so many of the same situations, I really think Social Security and the IRS gets kickbacks from the BAR Association. I have had three fellow Soldiers, in the span of 1 month have to hire an attorney for court, and they were approved within minutes of questioning. EASY slam dunk for the attorneys. It is sad and insane!

I would see it as the other way around (though, "figuratively"). The problems is not that the lawyers are "making out" on big paydays. It is that the government is- and it is limiting the potential recovery by the lawyers.

Take my practice of law. The only way I learned about military disability law in the first place was that I was assigned as a military attorney at a PEB. This means that I learned much about the system by practicing on the "governments dime." But, the "barriers for entry" (meaning, what it would take for a competent attorney to learn enough and practice enough in this field to make a living) are huge. Basically, the "military disability" law field (or for that matter, the SSDI, or VA law field) are "competing" against every other practice area where a lawyer might earn a living. Is it easier to learn and get experienced in these areas of law, or can I make more money in drafting contracts, doing DUI criminal defense, divorce cases, slip and fall cases, or any of the other fields? The lack of attorney involvement in SSDI/VA/military disability cases is not a good thing for claimants. And, it is probably much easier by far to not get involved in these fields. Is that good or bad? I leave it to the readers to figure that one out.

My main point is that "incentives" matter in making decisions. I tend to think that the problem is not with too many lawyers- it is with too few. But, that without money incentives, (either on the governments part in "paying" for bad decisions, or on the part of lawyers in having a reason to take cases), you will see poor outcomes and recurring bad decisions.

Yes, I agree the system is broken. But, were I looking to fix the system, I would want more lawyer involvement, not less.

Reasonable folks might disagree.

 

[nwlivewire]

Just wanted to throw in a few comments here- and, I am pointing out that as a lawyer, I have an interest in earning money from my profession. So, my views may be colored by that- however, I think I am right (but, doesn't everyone?). I don't take the posts personally- I get the instinct and the thought process behind them. But, overall, I think they are aimed in the wrong direction. I would venture that it is not the lawyers- or "too many lawyers," as the problem. It is not enough lawyers and/or limitations on what they can earn that keeps much of the system(s) from being "fixed."

As a starting point, I believe that economic "incentives" govern most actors (I originally was going to write "folks'" instead of "actors- but, I include the government and businesses in this paradigm, so actions/choices. (Perhaps the extremely rich, and, in some cases, the very poor, do not always act rationally- for different reasons). I could be dead wrong. And, I know that there are bad lawyers, those who don't care about clients and are only in the field to make a "buck." (Though, at the same time, this criticism is somewhat counter-intuitive/strange/unfair....I probably won't go too far into this, but lawyers generally seem to be held to some strange standard where they are criticized for earning money; most people don't hold the same view about most other professions, I think. Folks are not generally up in arms about their real estate agent, carpenter, car mechanic, grocer, bartender, health club owner, charging for or earning a fee. What really strikes me as odd, as a consumer like everyone one else of services is that doctors and insurance companies don't seem to raise the same kind of ire about their charges. I have some thoughts about why this might be, but, it is way too much to go into in a post like this).



I don't know any details of @nwlivewire 's case. (And, I don't practice law in SSDI arena- I am familiar with many of the issues as they relate to military disability and VA cases, though). My first point, though, is while I agree that it is a shame that money had to spent on a lawyer to get what seems to be an outcome that should have been forthcoming originally, the lawyers are not making the big money here. My point is that people/society should look at who has the most to gain out of any "system." Do you want to know my instinct here? I will tell you- the winner is the US government.

A few other points before I (hopefully) lead the reader to the conclusion that I think is correct. First, SSDI lawyers are limited in their fees to $6000 or 25% (whichever is less) of recovery for a claim. (Before I forget, this puts an incentive on cases not being taken until the $6k mark is met....because, should there be a claim that is not yet to the $6k mark, if the work is the same, the lawyer actually loses out- this issue becomes much more apparent in the context of VA claims). So, who gains by not having lawyers charge on the "free market" (meaning they charge a fee and the client either accepts or rejects based on the fee quoted)? I think that the government does, in several ways. Many claimants will not pursue a lawyer in the first case after a denial. Who wins? The government, by not having to pay what in many cases will be a lifetime benefit. The relative winner here between government and lawyers? The government by a landslide.



YES!!! This is exactly my point on the "incentives." If the government had to pay or had some sort of penalty (maybe interest on wrongfully denied claims) then I think you would see more correct initial decisions.



Again, mostly I agree. Though, I think a lot of folks would be surprised about how what seems like a clear cut case needs some "tweaking" from a lawyer (though, I am not sure that a "lawyer" is always needed- I am not personally opposed to some sort of "accredited lay representative" in these cases). I think the main point that I agree with is the issue of "who pays," (or should pay) for services. The incentive under the current system is for the government to deny claims- and make people fight for their due benefits. My view is that the incentives should be aligned to make the government not want to wrongfully deny claims- i.e., to make their be some sort of disincentive to making errors.


Absolutely not. But, I go back to the idea that folks generally seem to hold lawyers to a standard they don't hold other professionals to...let's take doctors (and hospitals) for an example. If you go to a doctor, he diagnoses you with "early cancer," treats it, and you are in remission/cured, few folks say, "well, that was an easy case- the doctor should not get paid." With hospitals, they sometimes charge ridiculous amounts (with a wide and non-transparent spread) for things like aspirin, at $20 a tablet for something that goes for about 4 cents on the market.

What are the lawyers to do in these cases? Say, "no, I don't want to get paid what the law allows?) (Though, as a more complex point, this might be correct). My point here is that if there were not any money to be made at all for the lawyers in SSDI cases, then no one would take these cases. (Why? Because they could earn more doing divorces, DUI cases, personal injury cases, or working on fee basis in criminal cases). See more on this point below.



I think you hit it on the head- it is racket- but not on the part of the lawyers. The racket is the government who gets to deny cases and gets away with it without any consequences. Who is to be blame here? The lawyers? I think not (and here is why). The "big money" in the law is in corporate work ($1200/hour fees- which are written off by the companies as a business expense); class action law suits (where you have multi-billion dollar pay days for the lawyers, with coupons or discounts for the class members); product liability cases (where you have the lawyers taking at least 30% and, after fees and costs, upwards of 60% in some cases), or personal injury cases (where a minimum of 30% is expected, but with costs and fees, the percentages climb much higher). Why do you see "reform" and action in a lot of these arenas? Because there is big money to be made by major law firms in these cases. And there is a big payday that is paid by the party at fault. Notice a difference between major money-making fields of law and disability areas (I am talking SSDI, military disability cases, and Veterans cases)? Yup, there is no "huge pay day" for the lawyers AND the government is not substantially (or in any real way) penalized for making errors in cases. What is the result? A dearth of lawyers fighting the cases in a "big" or "systemic" way. If it were tobacco litigation and there were billions to be made (and money poured into political action committees, or advocacy groups) then you would likely see big changes in disability law issues. But, the lack of money (or incentives for lawyers- really, for big law firms- to get involved) coupled with both an incentive for the government to deny claims without a discentive for it doing so, means that you see huge injustices played out every day.

This is problematic for a few reasons. First, without a "big money" payout for law firms and lawyers, there is no money to fix the problems.

Though this may sound mercenary (or perhaps, "self interested," on my part), the point is that I think it is not the lack of lawyers being involved in the system that is the problem. It is the exact opposite- if there were monetary incentives for lawyers to pursue these cases- and not to compete with other possible (big) money making cases, then you might see substantive changes and real solutions to the problems that face military folks, Veterans, and disabled folks.





I would see it as the other way around (though, "figuratively"). The problems is not that the lawyers are "making out" on big paydays. It is that the government is- and it is limiting the potential recovery by the lawyers.

Take my practice of law. The only way I learned about military disability law in the first place was that I was assigned as a military attorney at a PEB. This means that I learned much about the system by practicing on the "governments dime." But, the "barriers for entry" (meaning, what it would take for a competent attorney to learn enough and practice enough in this field to make a living) are huge. Basically, the "military disability" law field (or for that matter, the SSDI, or VA law field) are "competing" against every other practice area where a lawyer might earn a living. Is it easier to learn and get experienced in these areas of law, or can I make more money in drafting contracts, doing DUI criminal defense, divorce cases, slip and fall cases, or any of the other fields? The lack of attorney involvement in SSDI/VA/military disability cases is not a good thing for claimants. And, it is probably much easier by far to not get involved in these fields. Is that good or bad? I leave it to the readers to figure that one out.

My main point is that "incentives" matter in making decisions. I tend to think that the problem is not with too many lawyers- it is with too few. But, that without money incentives, (either on the governments part in "paying" for bad decisions, or on the part of lawyers in having a reason to take cases), you will see poor outcomes and recurring bad decisions.

Yes, I agree the system is broken. But, were I looking to fix the system, I would want more lawyer involvement, not less.

Reasonable folks might disagree.

Thanks Jason for your perspectives.

My thought is that IF the US Gov't system was "fair and square" to begin with, then we wouldn't need so many lawyers in these fields as we have to have today.

If I were to build a shoddy building and things kept majorly breaking down all the time, I would get sued for "Shoddy workmanship" and everything else.

Now things do break down from time to time - which is why you have a building maintenance crew. You don't need to have an entire construction building workforce of hundreds for the maintenance of one standard sized building - if built properly.

I think in the end, what you wrote is a more accurate accountability notion of how to fix this mess.

As far as my SSDI claim, my attorney got the max allowable fee PLUS about another 10% for postage, mailing copies, and other misc. charges not covered under the maximum Government fee schedule. The law firms hourly rate for the time spent on my case was WELL in excess of 250.00 per hour.

As a former union construction trades wage earner, I would have liked to have earned a Government fee-based income like that. That's a very generous package. Why else are we seeing expensive National TV ads from the very law firms who specifically target this market - the possible SSDI recipient who has a valid claim and needs legal assistance?

Accountability is a major issue here - or lack thereof. And the "multiplier effect" - the costs from "passing the buck" - and who pays for this - is just wrong - wrong - wrong.

I wish the Government agencies who make these lame-brained decisions that get overturned eventually within their own system of "checks and balances" - I sure do wish those costs would be borne/reimbursed by the institution and not by the disabled recipient who eventually wins their valid claim.

I think we wouldn't need so many lawyers as "middle-men", and we could get accountability handed back/weighted in the right direction were the system/decision-makers handed back accountability at the lower tiers of decision-making responsibility.

But you're right Jason in sooo many ways. It just seems to me that the emphasis is on the wrong syllable. And justice can be a very messy arena - or the path to get there can be.

V/R,

nwlivewire

 

[grizz13]

@Jason Perry that very well thought out response and much appreciated. The fact that you started this site and still continue your advising when you can shows that all lawyers aren't bad (I also have a fantastic family friend who is a friend.) I know there are some bad apples out there, and I know a little bit of how much it costs to become a lawyer/doctor. The cost of being a lawyer is high, not only in college tuition and the start up of the office, but in respect from the fellow man. From the get go, we as a society are trained by our parents and grandparents that lawyers, pharmaceuticals, big box corporations, doctors, (in some cases churches) and so on are life and money sucking parasites.

Where would the world be without them?

 

[Warrior644]

@Jason Perry that very well thought out response and much appreciated. The fact that you started this site and still continue your advising when you can shows that all lawyers aren't bad (I also have a fantastic family friend who is a friend.) I know there are some bad apples out there, and I know a little bit of how much it costs to become a lawyer/doctor. The cost of being a lawyer is high, not only in college tuition and the start up of the office, but in respect from the fellow man. From the get go, we as a society are trained by our parents and grandparents that lawyers, pharmaceuticals, big box corporations, doctors, (in some cases churches) and so on are life and money sucking parasites.

Where would the world be without them?

Indeed, in a world without law and order for sure in my opinion!

Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."

Best Wishes!