Stephan Lindner and Austin Nichols at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College have done a study, dealing, in part, with the effects of receipt of unemployment benefits on Disability Insurance Benefits claims at Social Security. The result, which is no surprise to me, is that the receipt of unemployment benefits decreases Disability Insurance Benefits claims.
What I have observed is that many people delay, delay, delay in filing claims for Disability Insurance Benefits. They make do with whatever other income they can find and only apply for Social Security disability benefits when they are near the end of their rope. I think the reason in most cases is an unwillingness to accept that they are disabled -- people tend to have unrealistic recovery hopes -- and because the prospect of dealing with the Social Security Administration is too daunting. As an attorney who represents Social Security claimants, I then have to tell people who are desperate for income and medical care that they are starting a process that may take two years with an outcome which cannot be reliably predicted.
What I have observed is that many people delay, delay, delay in filing claims for Disability Insurance Benefits. They make do with whatever other income they can find and only apply for Social Security disability benefits when they are near the end of their rope. I think the reason in most cases is an unwillingness to accept that they are disabled -- people tend to have unrealistic recovery hopes -- and because the prospect of dealing with the Social Security Administration is too daunting. As an attorney who represents Social Security claimants, I then have to tell people who are desperate for income and medical care that they are starting a process that may take two years with an outcome which cannot be reliably predicted.
17 comments:
most states have laws wherein, by accepting unemployment insurance benefits, the recipient affirmatively states they are able to work.
Therefore, any people who get disabiltiy benefits during a period that they collect unemployment insurance benefits are comitting fraud.
Yes, it's a tough stance, but the two benefits are, by law, mutually exclusive.
Wrong. By accepting UI, they are committing to being WILLING to work, to seeking work. Whether or not they are ABLE to work is a determination that the Commissioner will make if/when they apply for DI.
Depends on the state. In my state, an applicant for unemployment benefits affirms that they are able to work FULL TIME and willing to look for work.
Here are quotes from the unemployment laws of some states regarding eligibility for UI benefits.
"must be available to perform suitable full-time work" michigan
"An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the individual: (1) is physically and mentally able to work;" Indiana
"Is able to work" Ohio
Please be careful when making statements about the law if you don't actually know the law.
Along with it being a daunting challenge, and with people being overly optimistic, there is also the stigma associated with being on disability, especially amoung people under 60. I know a few young people on dissability, and they would rather not tell you, and let you assume anything else (they sling rock, they turn tricks) than to tell you the truth.
Yes, it is these nefarious people who are committing fraud...
I don't know why you would try to create the impression that the process is so daunting. I'd rather deal with the public servants at Social Security than attorney reps any day. No one at Social Security would think of telling a claimant that it may take 2 years and the decisions are random -- because it is the exception, not the rule, and certainly not the average experience of claimants.
we say someone is disabled at 50 with rfc for sedentary work. 55 light. we are saying some level of work is possible, but disabed per our rules.
for claimant's over 50, unemployment and disabilty are not always mutually exclusive
Re: UI and SSDI being in apparent conflict, you are also leaving out reasonable accomodation under the ADA. In proving disability you do NOT have to account for the possible impact of the ADA. Under UI, you might be able to perform certain jobs if the employer would accomodate your limitations.
Social Security Disability and Unemployment are NOT mutually exclusive. Even the ODAR Chief ALJ has recognized that and has issued instructions to that effect. When you speak with disability claimants day after day you will find that the overwhelming majority would try ANY kind of work rather than be on disability. When faced with having no income and suffering from a bizarre addiction to food (with which their children also must contend) they reach out to whatever life preserver is available. If that is UC, so be it. Reflexively saying that receipt of UC precludes a finding of disabled for the same time is legally incorrect and an unreasoned over simplification of the facts. IMHO it is also morally wrong, but that is an argument for another day. Anon 9:37 try learning a little something before throwing the "fraud" word around.
Thank you, Robert. Sure people think (hope) they can work. They're happy to attest to their willingness to work--and their "availability." But whether they can in fact do so is another matter entirely.
And they're not SSA adjudicators, so they have no basis for determining whether or not they are (or would be) considered disabled by SSA--short of applying and finding out, of course.
A finding of disability is different than being disabled. When claimant's apply for disability, they say they are unable to perform any job. When they collect UI, they say they are able to work. Those two statements cannot be reconciled.
The finding of disability (as noted above) does not always mean that the person cannot do any work (sedentary work at 50).
I am not saying that a finding of disabilty is not consistent with collecting unemployment insurance. I am saying that the claimant's own statements are inconsistent...and in my opinion are fraudulent and aimed at getting whatever benefits they can, rather than being entirely truthful.
re: 10:53 am 2/10/12 comment - Now THAT is funny - at least at our local field office! Our local field office is not the least bit suspicious about SSA Rules and Regulations. They honestly do not have a clue about even basic constitutuional guarantees, due process...I don't know where they find these people.
Dear 2:21 pm Feb. 10:
Again, you are wrong on a key point here. Let me repeat. Filing for UI requires a person to be WILLING to work, to be job-seeking. Whether a person is ABLE to work (with or without accommodations) is an entirely different matter. The person filing for UI is simply willing to give it a go.
Filing for DI, that same person is attesting to not currently working (at SGA) and having significant limitations on his/her capability to work.
Oh well, you're mind (humph) is made up, so I quit.
What is a more important issue is HOW they are able to collect unemployment. If they quit because of their impairments, they generally will not qualify for unemployment. If they are laid off due to the economy and are therefore eligible for coverage, then why couldn't they have kept working?
Egads. So much rhetoric. While there may be tension between being "ready, willing, and able" to work for UC purposes and "disabled" for Social Security purposes, it is worse that demagoguery to assert baldly that to apply for Soc Sec and collect UC is fraud. In addition to folks who meet many Listings and are absolutely entitled to both under the appropriate circumstances (e.g. on dialysis; working; laid off; apply for Soc Sec. Blind. Deaf. Unable to ambulate effectively -- countless examples abound), Grids may also lead to disability while still ready willing and able. Also, not every state requires FULL TIME work for UC purposes. The short version is that it is way more complicated than some of the simplistic comments above might suggest. GROW UP, folks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/social-security-disability-program-reveals-budget-quagmire/2012/02/10/gIQA261V9Q_story.html?hpid=z5
Have a current and real example. Wife 43 and a hero in my opinion, 19 years same employer. Statutorily blind from birth at 20/400 and 20/300. Obviously has never held a drivers license yet never missed or late in entire career. Laid off in Dec. Starting unemployment while looking for her level of work and finally applying for ssdi under 2.02 statutory blindness for the disability freeze and an income floor. She will drop it in a heartbeat the second she finds a new career she can do. She is not a fraudulent person.
Post a Comment