The Social Security Administration has just adopted changes to its HALLEX Manual concerning "critical" cases. Critical cases are those where:
The main changes are to add the language italicized above which makes it clear that Social Security intends to be quite inclusive about the military service personnel category and to add military service cases to the TERI (Terminal Illness) category, the subcategory of critical cases that get the very most expedited review.
Treating military service cases as TERI cases seems over the top to me Let me say something out loud that I have only heard whispered because it is so politically incorrect. Why are the military service cases so urgent? These folks already have an income from their military service pension or VA or both. Most military service personnel who become disabled are not disabled as a result of hostile action. Have a heart attack while on military service stateside and you get TERI treatment? Get injured in a car wreck because you were drunk and you qualify for TERI because you happened to be in the Army at the time? Why? Shouldn't we be worrying more about the disability claims of people who are in homeless shelters? I think someone got carried away.
By the way, Social Security also removed a list of possibly terminal illnesses that it had in the prior version. One condition which was on the list previously was being on a liver transplant list. I guess that turned out to be a little embarrassing since Social Security is turning down most claims of people who are on a liver transplant waiting list.
- The claimant's illness is terminal
- The case involves a disability claim for any military service personnel injured October 1, 2001 or later regardless of how or where the disability occurred, whether in the United States or on foreign soil, provided that the individual was on active duty when the injury occurred.
- The claimant's file is flagged as a Compassionate Allowance case, which means that the claimant has or is alleged to have a condition on a list maintained by Social Security.
- The claimant is without, and is unable to obtain, food, medicine or shelter.
The main changes are to add the language italicized above which makes it clear that Social Security intends to be quite inclusive about the military service personnel category and to add military service cases to the TERI (Terminal Illness) category, the subcategory of critical cases that get the very most expedited review.
Treating military service cases as TERI cases seems over the top to me Let me say something out loud that I have only heard whispered because it is so politically incorrect. Why are the military service cases so urgent? These folks already have an income from their military service pension or VA or both. Most military service personnel who become disabled are not disabled as a result of hostile action. Have a heart attack while on military service stateside and you get TERI treatment? Get injured in a car wreck because you were drunk and you qualify for TERI because you happened to be in the Army at the time? Why? Shouldn't we be worrying more about the disability claims of people who are in homeless shelters? I think someone got carried away.
By the way, Social Security also removed a list of possibly terminal illnesses that it had in the prior version. One condition which was on the list previously was being on a liver transplant list. I guess that turned out to be a little embarrassing since Social Security is turning down most claims of people who are on a liver transplant waiting list.
3 comments:
There is considerable evidence that many returning Iraq/Afganistan veterans have "invisible" disabling conditions, chiefly PTSD and the residuals of traumatic head injuries, among others. This looks like a reaction to the criticism that's already out there of inadequate care for Vets, especially those with mental disorders.
I'm a poor judge of whether it's politically correct to question this having frequently asked such questions myself. However, I always wondered why T2DIB didn't have Presumptive Disability determinations just like SSI did. Or why conditions meriting IMPACC payments didn't get them routinely when we got Hearing Approvals, etc.
Re IMPACC, the argument against it was that the record had to be manually processed if you used it. But, Hearing Allowances are always processed manually. I never could see the justification for delaying payment for these benes.
As for the WayBack Machine, I was in high school with his mother.
As a post script, I just read your piece on liver transplants. The current listing is indefensible. I would argue that a patient with a MELD of 22 would probably be dead by the time the CR finished the teleclaim. I would be interested in reading more about this subject, when the topic surfaces again.
Post a Comment