From Social Security Ruling 13-1p to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow: "Possible examples of allegations that the Appeals Council will refer to the Division of Quality Service include, 'the ALJ is biased against claimants who receive workers compensation benefits or unemployment benefits' and 'the ALJ shows prejudice toward women'.”
12 comments:
In a previous post i made a comment about the degree or quality to which a person can work which may not amount to SGA as it relates to unemployment benefits. It seems i may have been right.
A simple question: why is it OK to tell one government agency you are available and willing to work in order to receive a government benefit yet tell another government agency that you are unable to work because of a disabling condition in order to receive a government benefit? Next question, why is the person who is to decide on eligibility considered negatively for recognizing such a contradiction? Why is it, for some people, they only follow the standard of heads I win, tails you lose? We are truely living in a Wonderland where the crazy Queen rules!
I hope that AC will look PAST alj decisions when determining if there is bias. I.e. lots of times unemployment is used as a credibility factor in UF decisions. However, that same ALJ will undoubtedly have granted MANY FF decisions where there was evidence of unemployment compensation received.
When you certify you are willing and able to work for unemployment, you are not indicating what type of work you can do. Maybe the most you can do is sedentary work. If you are 50 or older, you can still receive disability benefits despite being perfectly capable of performing sedentary work. Therefore, being found "disabled" is not incompatible with collecting unemployment because in both situations there is actually a category of work you can do; it is only because SSA is foolish enough to pay people for being "old" that the farcical result occurs.
Seems that it is very easy to be high and mighty as long as the shoe is on the other foot. Try living on nothing for 2 years while you wait for your hearing. Tell me you would not take the UE benefits to keep food on the table and gas in the tank. Pay for school lunches and keep the lights on.
I sure hope commenter #2 ("simple question") isn't in an adjudicatory position with the agency. Of course disabled people can be 'available and willing to work.' Thousands of such people do indeed work at SGA. When they lose their jobs and can't find another, they have every right to collect unemployment benefits and apply for disability. There simply is no conflict here.
Did you just say "when they lose their jobs and can't find another, they have every right to collect unemployment benefits and file for disability"? I agree with the first part, but shouldn't they actually be disabled for the second? Unfortunately, too many people think like you and file for disability without a severe impairment. Then the system gets overloaded with bogus claims that slow down the process for those truly deserving.
Heh. Seeing how poorly workers' compensation is developed prior to a favorable decision, I would be amazed to hear how the ALJs are discriminating based on that factor.
I can completely accept unemployment employment as an area of prejudiced focused, however, that ALJs given hidden weight to.
In New Mexico, a person can qualify for unemployment benefits even if he or she can work only 20 hours per week. Or, if the person cannot do certain types of work activity, such as work involving extended walking or standing. Such person could easily be eligible for unemployment benefits and also be disabled under SSA rules.
sure, there's lots of wiggle room where applying for UIB and SS are not inconsistent. but because so many fronts have harped about rather limited circumstances (how many people who have applied for UIB are over 50 and saying they are looking for sedentary? How many states allow for UIB recipients to look for only certain exertional levels of work or hours of work [i.e. work that wouldn't be SGA or would not affect a GRID pay]?).
These few exceptions have made SSA run for the hills and surrender any use of one's UIB application or receipt on credibility for what is many times a direct contradiction (telling your State you can work, telling SSA you cannot).
I'm sorry you had difficulty putting food on the table while waiting for disability benefits. I understand you need income, and I think that money should come from some governmental source in your time of need. But just like child SSI, it is not wise to get lax with one program's requirements/implementation in order to bandaid the ill effects of another.
Fix disability or fix unemployment benefits, or add another benefit for the 'tweeners. But don't have some piecemeal system where both programs look the other way at people who told the other the opposite thing in order to get payments from both.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that applying for and accepting unemployment benefits means 1) I lost my job, 2) I would love to get another job but haven't been able to, so please help me out. Applying for and accepting (if you can get past some lamebrain ALJs) DI means 1) I am not performing SGA, 2) I have what I believe to be a disabling condition, and 3) I paid into this system and think I am qualified to receive benefits. (And the minute I'm offered a job I can do I'll take it and forgo DI benefits, unlikely as this may be.) How such a person "lacks credibility" utterly befuddles me.
One correction to the previous post. The minute the DI is offered a job he can do, he WILL take it, and then proceed to conceal it from SSA so that he can have his disability check and his wages. Then he'll complain when gets caught and us overpaid. But wait, he didn't do anything wrong did he?
Post a Comment