A court in Pennsylvania has ruled that a worker who files a claim for Social Security retirement benefits forfeits all rights to periodic workers compensation benefits because he has removed himself from the labor market.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Just like some ALJs say a person is not entitled to disability if they file for unemployment because they hold themselves out as ready to work. sometimes it is a matter of survival.
To get unemployment, you're certifying by penalty of perjury that you're willing and able to work, and you're actively seeking work.
In the SSD/SSI context, it's at least fair to point out the credibility issue raised where someone files an unemployment claim, then alleges disability during that same period.
It also shows that they thought they were able to work, on some level, when they filed for unemployment.
The PA court ruling seems a bit excessive. But then, we can't all have our cake and eat it, too...
I is important to find out what joobs the uc recipient sought. If she is 50 with no transferable skills and limited herself to sed. jobs she is lilly white. If he is 30 and filled job aps at the nearest 5 fastfood restuarants, he might have a legitimate credibility issue. I have NEVER seen u/c receipts being a critical piece of evidence that led to a denial that was upheld at the USDC level. It makes for nice theory but is not realistically important.
Why is this Unemployment Compensation v. SSA Disability so hard for simple minds to reconcile? The person who files for both at the same time is saying, "I want to work, I am available to work, if you offer me work I can do, I will accept it. BUT I don't know if I can work, I don't know if anyone will hire me given my limitations, and I don't know if I fit the definition of "disability" for SSA's purposes. So I am applying for both programs." How is that inconsistent, or somehow harmful to the applicant's "credibility?"
Also remember that the Grids direct a finding of "disabled" for individuals over 50 or 55 for whom there are literally millions of jobs they are physically capable of performing
The problem for some ALJs may be less the possible inconsistency in some cases in representing that a claimant can and cannot work, but more that a person should not receive UI benefits and disability insurance benefits for the same months.
As to the PA case, supposing the WC recipient applied for and received early RIB, the judge was mistaken that receiving RIB is necessarily and fatally inconsistent with receiving WC TTD or TPD benefits. RIB is an old-age benefit for those who at least 62 and insured. Perhaps, the judge was not aware that an early RIB recipient can work and receive RIB subject to an earnings test.
By January 2007, the date in dispute, the claimant was age 67. He was no longer subject to an earnings test at all. He could have both returned to work full time and could have continued to receive his Social Security benefits. So the Court's drawing any inference whatsoever from the receipt of Social Security benefits was ludicrous.
The Union pension may be a different matter, except it is impossible to tell from the decision whether the Court hung the decision on the receipt of the Union pension, Social Security benefits, or both.
9 comments:
Just like some ALJs say a person is not entitled to disability if they file for unemployment because they hold themselves out as ready to work. sometimes it is a matter of survival.
It was because he took his union pension which effectively retired him, not his SS benefits.
Sounds like the same rationale behind SSA Retirement / Workers Comp setoffs to me.
To get unemployment, you're certifying by penalty of perjury that you're willing and able to work, and you're actively seeking work.
In the SSD/SSI context, it's at least fair to point out the credibility issue raised where someone files an unemployment claim, then alleges disability during that same period.
It also shows that they thought they were able to work, on some level, when they filed for unemployment.
The PA court ruling seems a bit excessive. But then, we can't all have our cake and eat it, too...
I is important to find out what joobs the uc recipient sought. If she is 50 with no transferable skills and limited herself to sed. jobs she is lilly white. If he is 30 and filled job aps at the nearest 5 fastfood restuarants, he might have a legitimate credibility issue. I have NEVER seen u/c receipts being a critical piece of evidence that led to a denial that was upheld at the USDC level. It makes for nice theory but is not realistically important.
Why is this Unemployment Compensation v. SSA Disability so hard for simple minds to reconcile? The person who files for both at the same time is saying, "I want to work, I am available to work, if you offer me work I can do, I will accept it. BUT I don't know if I can work, I don't know if anyone will hire me given my limitations, and I don't know if I fit the definition of "disability" for SSA's purposes. So I am applying for both programs." How is that inconsistent, or somehow harmful to the applicant's "credibility?"
Also remember that the Grids direct a finding of "disabled" for individuals over 50 or 55 for whom there are literally millions of jobs they are physically capable of performing
The problem for some ALJs may be less the possible inconsistency in some cases in representing that a claimant can and cannot work, but more that a person should not receive UI benefits and disability insurance benefits for the same months.
As to the PA case, supposing the WC recipient applied for and received early RIB, the judge was mistaken that receiving RIB is necessarily and fatally inconsistent with receiving WC TTD or TPD benefits. RIB is an old-age benefit for those who at least 62 and insured. Perhaps, the judge was not aware that an early RIB recipient can work and receive RIB subject to an earnings test.
By January 2007, the date in dispute, the claimant was age 67. He was no longer subject to an earnings test at all. He could have both returned to work full time and could have continued to receive his Social Security benefits. So the Court's drawing any inference whatsoever from the receipt of Social Security benefits was ludicrous.
The Union pension may be a different matter, except it is impossible to tell from the decision whether the Court hung the decision on the receipt of the Union pension, Social Security benefits, or both.
Post a Comment