This is not an argument that these people meet the requirements for disability and are being unfairly denied. It's an argument for broad based policy change. Clearly these people need support, whether or not they have a disability that is preventing them from working.
What this is evidence of is that the red and blue lines in particular represent people who are almost certainly unable to sustain SGA that are being discriminated against because their illnesses are more difficult to document and/or is not a "chosen" one. Some illnesses, by their nature, are simply more difficult to "prove," especially to a "sceptical," less than impartial, unreasonable, etc. ALJ and their VE willing accomplices/co-conspirators.
Only slightly, but it is not counter intuitive if you account for the fact that most reasonable (even low aware rate) ALJs will reach step 4. Generally speaking, only extremely low awarding ALJs resolve cases at step 2. The step 2 denial is a de minimus standard. I would imagine very few, even non-disabled claimants would not suffer from a single severe impairment. As such, a denial at step 2 usually suggests limited consideration as opposed to lack of impairment. That is not to say I have never seen a valid step 2 denial, but it is exceptionally rare.
I think the more intriguing part is the gradual decline of step 2 denial claimants versus the more abrupt step 4/5 denials. That suggests disabilities of non-traumatic origin are less determinable than disabilities of traumatic origin which is in line with SSR 83-20.
Most, if not all, of my step 2 denials are Title II only cases with remote DLI. They are often in pretty bad shape and generally older, so the decline is not surprising.
"This is not an argument that these people meet the requirements for disability and are being unfairly denied. It's an argument for broad based policy change. Clearly these people need support, whether or not they have a disability that is preventing them from working."
So you are saying they worked their whole lives and just decided to stop working because they are lazy?
"Then why do applications go down when the economy is good and unemployment low?"
My take: In a tight labor market, where employers are desperate for workers, they are more likely to accommodate an impaired worker.
In a bad labor market, the disabled either don't get hired or they don't keep jobs very long. When there are lots of young, healthy workers seeking employment, the older workers with impairments are at a distinct disadvantage.
What about the Americans with Disabilities Act? I don't see that having much of an impact for small business employers/employees.
One thing that has always puzzled me is why Social Security does not have a strong bias in favor of hiring and accommodating persons with disabilities. The government is one of the few places where those with impairments can work and their employer must accommodate them.
@9:29 It still amazes me that although they are regarded as "dead wood," many claimants are kept at their jobs and receive accommodations and wages. This is usually the case in family-owned businesses, but some kind-hearted employers will keep a long-term faithful worker on the rolls to answer phones and do little more. The employer is willing to do this until the economy crashes, then they become compelled to let the worker go. I have been surprised over the last 30 years to see how much of this takes place.
The accommodations you are referring to are much more likely to be offered to existing employees. My supervisor gave me several accommodations, but I was simply unable to work at a greatly reduced role. These accommodations are difficult for the employer to maintain due to others response. Envy of "special treatment" exists for the "obviously disabled," let alone the less obvious. SSA and some Republicans act as if accommodations occur in a vacuum, they aren't costly to the employer, and the employee can actually produce enough work to justify the accommodations/pay. As for the ADA, it has no real teeth in requiring employers (including SSA) to hire the disabled. It's teeth are more on the customer side. It only require "reasonable accommodations," but allows the employer to define "reasonable."
"So you are saying they worked their whole lives and just decided to stop working because they are lazy?"
Not at all. But what is frustrates us is that people will work all their life and then retire. Upon retirement, they file claims for disability. This drains the trust funds! It's no wonder the funds are running out of money.
Who is "us?" If they raise the age on SS, you will see more apply for SSDI in their 60s. Maybe what you are calling retirement is because of disability, not choice.
@929 "One thing that has always puzzled me is why Social Security does not have a strong bias in favor of hiring and accommodating persons with disabilities. The government is one of the few places where those with impairments can work and their employer must accommodate them."
I think they do hire disabled folks. TheLos Angeles Teleservice center had a unit that was entirely made up of blind folks. Been gone a long time so not sure if that still exists but there were about 10 of 150 or so that were blind. There were also a few folks in wheelchairs. Some CRs that are visually impaired have special machines to help them read the screens. Another person worked just 2 hours a day and with a voice controlled computer for close to 2 years before he finally filed for disability.
Yet, hundreds, if not thousands, of SSA and SSA-OHO career employees who developed a disability and were either denied, or offered an inadequate, RA were illegally forced out of their jobs for no good reason over the past three decades, (See Jantz v SSA Class Action Case, which took more than 10 years, and resulted in a Settlement in February 2016, and the former career employees who had developed a disability and been illegally forced out got precious little).
Unfortunately, SSA and SSA-OHO, continue to be recalcitrant when it comes to providing RA’s for career employees who develop a disability and request an RA. Clearly, SSA has a proven track record in this area, which reflects negatively on them.
This is not an argument that these people meet the requirements for disability and are being unfairly denied. It's an argument for broad based policy change. Clearly these people need support, whether or not they have a disability that is preventing them from working.
ReplyDeleteThe step 2/no severe impairment denials have the worst return-to-work rate? That seems counter intuitive.
ReplyDeleteWhat this is evidence of is that the red and blue lines in particular represent people who are almost certainly unable to sustain SGA that are being discriminated against because their illnesses are more difficult to document and/or is not a "chosen" one. Some illnesses, by their nature, are simply more difficult to "prove," especially to a "sceptical," less than impartial, unreasonable, etc. ALJ and their VE willing accomplices/co-conspirators.
ReplyDelete@12:13
ReplyDeleteOnly slightly, but it is not counter intuitive if you account for the fact that most reasonable (even low aware rate) ALJs will reach step 4. Generally speaking, only extremely low awarding ALJs resolve cases at step 2. The step 2 denial is a de minimus standard. I would imagine very few, even non-disabled claimants would not suffer from a single severe impairment. As such, a denial at step 2 usually suggests limited consideration as opposed to lack of impairment. That is not to say I have never seen a valid step 2 denial, but it is exceptionally rare.
I think the more intriguing part is the gradual decline of step 2 denial claimants versus the more abrupt step 4/5 denials. That suggests disabilities of non-traumatic origin are less determinable than disabilities of traumatic origin which is in line with SSR 83-20.
Then why do applications go down when the economy is good and unemployment low?
ReplyDeleteMost, if not all, of my step 2 denials are Title II only cases with remote DLI. They are often in pretty bad shape and generally older, so the decline is not surprising.
ReplyDelete"This is not an argument that these people meet the requirements for disability and are being unfairly denied. It's an argument for broad based policy change. Clearly these people need support, whether or not they have a disability that is preventing them from working."
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying they worked their whole lives and just decided to stop working because they are lazy?
Give me a break.
9:29 AM:
ReplyDelete"Then why do applications go down when the economy is good and unemployment low?"
My take: In a tight labor market, where employers are desperate for workers, they are more likely to accommodate an impaired worker.
In a bad labor market, the disabled either don't get hired or they don't keep jobs very long. When there are lots of young, healthy workers seeking employment, the older workers with impairments are at a distinct disadvantage.
What about the Americans with Disabilities Act? I don't see that having much of an impact for small business employers/employees.
One thing that has always puzzled me is why Social Security does not have a strong bias in favor of hiring and accommodating persons with disabilities. The government is one of the few places where those with impairments can work and their employer must accommodate them.
@9:29
ReplyDeleteIt still amazes me that although they are regarded as "dead wood," many claimants are kept at their jobs and receive accommodations and wages. This is usually the case in family-owned businesses, but some kind-hearted employers will keep a long-term faithful worker on the rolls to answer phones and do little more. The employer is willing to do this until the economy crashes, then they become compelled to let the worker go. I have been surprised over the last 30 years to see how much of this takes place.
The accommodations you are referring to are much more likely to be offered to existing employees. My supervisor gave me several accommodations, but I was simply unable to work at a greatly reduced role. These accommodations are difficult for the employer to maintain due to others response. Envy of "special treatment" exists for the "obviously disabled," let alone the less obvious. SSA and some Republicans act as if accommodations occur in a vacuum, they aren't costly to the employer, and the employee can actually produce enough work to justify the accommodations/pay. As for the ADA, it has no real teeth in requiring employers (including SSA) to hire the disabled. It's teeth are more on the customer side. It only require "reasonable accommodations," but allows the employer to define "reasonable."
Delete"So you are saying they worked their whole lives and just decided to stop working because they are lazy?"
ReplyDeleteNot at all. But what is frustrates us is that people will work all their life and then retire. Upon retirement, they file claims for disability. This drains the trust funds! It's no wonder the funds are running out of money.
Who is "us?" If they raise the age on SS, you will see more apply for SSDI in their 60s. Maybe what you are calling retirement is because of disability, not choice.
Delete@929 "One thing that has always puzzled me is why Social Security does not have a strong bias in favor of hiring and accommodating persons with disabilities. The government is one of the few places where those with impairments can work and their employer must accommodate them."
ReplyDeleteI think they do hire disabled folks. TheLos Angeles Teleservice center had a unit that was entirely made up of blind folks. Been gone a long time so not sure if that still exists but there were about 10 of 150 or so that were blind. There were also a few folks in wheelchairs. Some CRs that are visually impaired have special machines to help them read the screens. Another person worked just 2 hours a day and with a voice controlled computer for close to 2 years before he finally filed for disability.
Yet, hundreds, if not thousands, of SSA and SSA-OHO career employees who developed a disability and were either denied, or offered an inadequate, RA were illegally forced out of their jobs for no good reason over the past three decades, (See Jantz v SSA Class Action Case, which took more than 10 years, and resulted in a Settlement in February 2016, and the former career employees who had developed a disability and been illegally forced out got precious little).
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, SSA and SSA-OHO, continue to be recalcitrant when it comes to providing RA’s for career employees who develop a disability and request an RA. Clearly, SSA has a proven track record in this area, which reflects negatively on them.
There is only one way to interpret this graph. That is, that the vast majority of those who see an ALJ are truly disabled.
ReplyDeleteIf it were some kind of scam they would have gone back to work after getting denied by the ALJ.
Our country in this regard is a joke. Vulnerable people should be taken care of not swept aside like garbage.