A couple of months ago I advised a client who explicitly said he was disabled by psychiatric illness to get in psychiatric treatment. A month ago I called to see if he had done so. He told me that he hadn't gotten around to it yet. I restrained myself from asking why his busy schedule as a disabled person did not allow him time to get around to this. I just encouraged him to make the call. I checked back with him recently. Again, he said that he hadn't gotten around to it. Again, I encouraged him to get in treatment. Although he deserved it, I still did not inquire about why he couldn't find time to get in treatment. I just talked about the importance of psychiatric treatment to his case and to his life in general. He then told me that he had no intention of getting in psychiatric treatment because "I've been trying to get on Social Security disability for five years and I know very well what's disabling me." When I responded that the five year time he had been trying to get on Social Security suggested to me that he should try a new tack, he said he needed a different attorney. I told him, "Fine, I'll withdraw from representing you."
10 comments:
AND, if you wonder how it is being a Judge hearing these cases . . .
Keep yourself as a representative from being painted with the same brush as clients like these, by withdrawing before you go to a hearing. That's the beat advice I can give you.
Can't help those who don't want to help themselves....
Withdrawing was probably a good move. An UF decision doesn't result in any fees.
Dear Judge Anon,
I do not argue that Charles should have stayed in this case. I defer to his experience generally and specifically with this claimant. But why would you "paint" the rep with the same brush or any brush? The rep's job is to do his best for THAT claimant. Maybe it is not that the claimant does not want to help himself, he CAN'T help himself. Maybe this claimant needs the rep most of all.
I second R. Petruzzelli's sentiment. I am not my client. My client is not me. Don't ever confuse us. It's the nature of this business that sometimes you get saddled with losing cases. I have far less respect for attorneys who bail on clients with lousy cases than those that make sure they get a full hearing even though they know they're not likely to get paid. Sometimes I win cases I thought were lousy and lose cases I thought were winners. (Sounds like CTH withdrew because the client indicated he wanted a different attorney, which is entirely appropriate. So my comments are by no means a criticism of him).
Sigh! All too common among SSA claimants. Refuse to comprehend that there is a 'process' to go through. Refuse to accept good advice. Refuse to comprehend that there are steps that they can take to help themselves. Refuse to comprehend that just telling SSA that they are disabled is not sufficient. . . . :-(
The ex-client is still at the stage where treatment is voluntary.
Is is also fairly clear that his procrastination (one term for it) is a symptom of his mental illness and probably a large part of why the man is not working.
CLASS: The legal ethic questions are (1) whether the mentally ill applicant has the capacity to discharge counsel after his engaging counsel in a more lucid moment, and (2) how the duty of faithful representation squares with this over the telephone dumping of a troublesome and less than fully cooperative/communicative client. The representation of mentally ill, where they make their own decisions (i.e., no guardian ...) is gray area for any attorney.
“ ‘it is a questionable practice to chastise one with a mental impairment for the exercise of poor judgment in seeking rehabilitation.’ ” Nguyen, 100 F.3d at 1465 (quoting Blankenship v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 1116, 1124 (6th Cir.1989)).
I agree with Judge Anonymous. Furthermore, there are very few instances in which claimants "can't" help themselves. There are plenty of free clinics that they can visit to establish even basic care, both physical and mental. If the claimant was really mentally disabled he probably wouldn't have had the insight to apply for disability over and over and over again. There would be some type of records or notes indicating significant mental health issues (i.e. erratic behavior, special education records, recent IQ testing, recurrent problems in social settings, suicide attempts, being fired from several jobs for inattention/slowed pace, etc.), even without specific treatment at a mental health facility. These examples can be found in other evidence submitted to SSA (i.e.- school records, personnel files from former employers, and notes from the ER/hospital). When the file is lacking other examples such as these, it makes the claimant and the representative seem like they are on a fishing expedition.
Be smart and screen your cases. I certainly wouldn’t get saddled with cases that would probably result in an affirmation. If the record were reviewed thoroughly and an adequate brief was prepared, that would take quite a bit of time on my part, not that of my paralegal. I would rather devote that time to a case that will actually result in a fully favorable decision and a fee for my time. I personally think that the attorneys that don't mind taking these types of cases are those that don't devote enough time or effort into writing their pre-hearing briefs and preparing for the hearings. They can't miss the money that they truly didn't put forth the effort to earn. Their priority should be to help those that are really disabled as supported by their medical records, not to have to craft a disability out of thin air in hopes of getting “the lesser of 25% of back benefits/payments or $6,000”.
Sounds like the typical SSDI scammer trying to milk the system.
Maybe has mental problems, but there is help available for him that can point him in the right direction.
If not, he has no business receiving SSDI funds.
Post a Comment