From the Social Security Bulletin, the agency's scholarly publication:
Also, do you see evidence in this study to support increasing the age categories in the grid regulations? Should 55 or 57 be the new 50? Where is the proof that making this change would be a reasonable thing to do?
This article examines the experiences of Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) applicants aged 51 or older who were initially denied benefits because the disability examiner determined that they could perform either their past work or other work. ... We find that few older DI applicants who were denied benefits on this basis resumed work at a substantial level following denial. More commonly, applicants denied at this stage continued to pursue benefits, often successfully. Nearly two-thirds of initial work capacity-related denials were ultimately allowed DI benefits after appealing the initial decision or reapplying, and our estimates suggest that many of the rest claimed Old-Age and Survivors Insurance benefits before they reached full retirement age.Is it just me or does this suggest that it would be fairer to allow more of the disability claims filed by older people? Denying so many of the disability claims filed by older people creates misery and doesn't end up saving much money anyway. It makes work for me and other attorneys but that's certainly not a valid policy objective.
Also, do you see evidence in this study to support increasing the age categories in the grid regulations? Should 55 or 57 be the new 50? Where is the proof that making this change would be a reasonable thing to do?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the claimants don't go back to work after being denied probably means as a general rule these older claimants can't work and they should not have been denied. Also at age 50+ they face age discrimination in trying to return to work especially if they have a disability which the hiring official can see at the job interview.
I work disability claims in a payment center and it always makes me sad to see claims where the claimant is allowed at the ALJ level then dies in the 5 month waiting period or a few months after the ALJ decision. Sometimes they don't see a cent of the money from years of past due benefits if they pass away right after the ALJ decision. I have to get a SSA-1724 and pay their benefits to the highest priority survivor.
I see no point in raising the ages in the grid. 50+ applicants do have to be pretty health to get a job. Also, is any account going to be taken of what's happened to the job market with covid 19? There aren't going to be 100,000 silver wrappers, all these'kitchen helpers', call out clerks, or small hand packagers in the national economy.
ReplyDelete+ kitchen hel
@3:13
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, yes. The question is whether alternative work exists in significant numbers in the region the claimant resides, or multiple regions in the national economy. What constitutes "significant" is up for debate, but certainly I imagine the numbers will be lower in some jobs pre-covid-19.
That's how conservatives get older people off the rolls. Just want us too die.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that the insanely wealthy and powerful people that own and run this country couldn't care less if these workers in their fifties live or die. They sure as hell don't want to pay any tax that might go their way. Let's cut all the BS and be honest. The US has 75,000 corona virus deaths while Canada has 4500. They pretty much are making it clear that people in the high risk ages should be willing to die and sacrifice for an economy which only benefits them. The wrapping in the flag and evangelical Christianity is purely for political purposes. They don't care about our lives period! They don't care if the people in their fifties that are denied disability die and decrease the surplus population. They are broken parts in the machine. Toss them out!
ReplyDelete6:52 PM. I know you are suggesting that rich Republicans don't care about the disabled. Well, rich Democrats and Democrats in general don't either! I have gotten at least as much crap from union Democrats that show the same "jealousy" for those on disability that they show for rich people. Frankly, I wish I could trade with them... People, including doctors, just have no concept of what people like me go through on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteAs for being denied by an ALJ, there were only two options: reapply or... Going to work, anywhere, doing anything, wasn't an option. First of all, you would have to LIE to an employer that you COULD do a job. For a day, a week, a month... When you KNOW you CAN'T. No matter how much will power you have.
Generally speaking, if the person is 50 - 54 having the capacity to do only sedentary exertional level work will not be disqualifying, assuming high school education only and no transferable job skills. We know the root of the problem is the Dictionary of Occupational Titles which is severely out of date. The reality "test" is whether the person is "vocationally dysfunctional" and therefore incapable of participating in sustained substantial gainful work activity. Sometimes the fact that a person denied reapplies and in the interim has been unable to return to gainful employment is weighed informally as evidence of the person's incapacity to sustain work.
ReplyDeleteIf you cant Grid out, you are not disabled.
ReplyDeleteCBPP blogged about this study when it first came out in 2018 as a working paper; see https://www.cbpp.org/blog/denied-disability-applicants-fare-badly-in-the-labor-market. "The new study adds to a body of research that has found dim labor-market and economic outcomes for denied SSDI applicants."
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many of those 60+% people were change in age awards where they applied at 53 or 54 and then aged into disability after crossing the 55yo threshold. Also curious to know how many were IE denials because they didn't complete paperwork and then dumped in a bunch of new records at recon or the hearing level. Simply because a large number of people end up getting subsequent awards means nothing on whether more people should just be awarded at the initial level. The lack of data to clarify why those people were awarded at a later level or in a subsequent application simply doesn't support that assertion.
ReplyDelete@12:01
ReplyDeleteIt does when you consider DDS had the option of awarding under the borderline age principle, yet chose not to. As to the IE denials, yeah maybe.
Believe the Grids has always been one of the few fair parts of process. The listings are usually too hard to meet or equal. The rules establishing disability under 50 is extremely difficult. But the Grids are hard to complain about and give the ability to win a lot of cases.
ReplyDeleteI have wondered about the 50-54 age range. Feel like that is somewhat earlier in life to possibly transition from a light job to a sedentary job for some people. Feel like the Grids is acknowledging age discrimination when it comes to employment.
Would still like the 55 Grids rules still apply. But I would not be opposed to tweaking ages 50-54. Maybe there could be some requirement where a person takes some steps to train or look for a sedentary job if they have performed mainly light work.
@12:19, it's a rarity to have cases where they incorrectly fail to non-mechanically apply the grid rules, though certainly a misclassification of PRW or incorrectly finding PRW in the absence of earnings is more common.
ReplyDeleteI've certainly seen it (including a case where the person was 54yo, 11 months, and 28 days old and another where they were actually over 55), but the more usual fact pattern is someone gets denied at 53yo and 11 mo, and by the time it gets to the hearing level, they are over 55. Or they get denied at the initial level, pursue up to hearing level, and get denied all under the age of 54. They appeal to the AC, and over a year later, review is denied. They file a subsequent application at or near the age of 55 and get awarded.
There is a limit to how far back one can or should non-mechanically apply the grid rules. The Regs say a few days to a few months, though I suppose "few" is a subjective term that one can interpret liberally if one so chooses.
@3:35
ReplyDeleteYeah, a "few" is subjective. If the claimant could simply refile and be awarded, why not? Even if that is up to a year or two. It's just a waste of time to deny at that point.
Fair point, 4:40. Why not go ahead and grid the 48yo out under 202.06 if they'll grid in 7 years anyway? I mean, 84 months is only a few compared to the 1,200 in a century.
ReplyDelete7:26 PM. Sarcasm aside, I was 3 days from a date which could be applied to grid out based on the RFC given by DDS. The ALJ, based upon the "testimony" of the VE, inflated my job skills and titles. And, a Federal Judge said this WAS my skill level. However, no employer would buy this equivalence. As they say in Texas, is "Chicken salad the same as chicken $Hiff?" So, in order to deny me, the ALJ inflated my skills, ignored my nonexertional limitations, argued that one of my Rheumatologist's diagnosis was wrong, that my symptoms couldn't be explained by the different diagnosis, denied my subpoena... All when 183 days later, the SAME RFC would grid out! WHY? To save money?
ReplyDelete