From WFTS in Tampa Bay:
... Brett Chamberlin's letters from the Social Security Administration have piled up.
“They send me letters saying, you didn’t come for your interview. I didn’t have an interview. You didn’t submit the information we requested. You didn’t request any information,” Chamberlin said.
He has been going back and forth with the SSA office since 2017, when he was first diagnosed with Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and Giant Cell Arteritis. ...
Chamberlin depends on high flow oxygen 100% of the time and uses a wheelchair to get around. He tells ABC Action News he was declared disabled by his doctor but has been denied Social Security disability. ...
“We’re not able to survive. I have sold everything that I owned of any value with the exception of my wedding ring,” Chamberlin said. ...
17 comments:
He sounds like he has a DLI in the past unless he has a child getting benefits. Actually if no children involved, he's not even insured for retirement since he's getting spousal benefits. It may not be that he's not disabled as much as not disabled before his DLI way in the past.
This case specifically, must have something hanging it up. It would seem to me that SSA would immediately approve obvious cases to reduce their caseload quicker. Maybe for some reason, this isn't an obvious case. Their delay on the obvious ones, however, slow everything down. I am the epitome of Murphy's law. Something sent, but not received, sent but went to the wrong office, sent but lost totally. When things go haywire like that, it's best to hire a lawyer. I find it hard to believe a Disability Attorney wouldn't take this man's case unless it's not a valid disability. I am not familiar with all of SSA's listings, but nowhere in the article (yup, I read it) did it say he pursued legal assistance. If in fact this man is disabled, he should be entitled to back pay from 2017 onward. Is that realistic? Probably not.
Something doesn’t add up after reading the article.
SSA does not have benefits for a disabled spouse. So in order the get “spousal” benefits he has to be either at least 62 or if he is under 62, he’d have to have a child in his care under age 16 or a disabled adult child in his care who is also getting benefits.
If there is no child involved, then he has to be retirement age and as posted above and not entitled to higher retirement benefit on his own work record. That would mean his work record is not recent (or may be nonexistent) and his DLI is well in the past.
After watching the video along with the article, there just isn’t enough information to say much more. He can be disabled but if he wasn’t disabled prior to his DLI or ever insured, then he’s not being medically denied benefits. He being denied for non-medical reasons.
I wonder if he’s applied for SSI? Based on his spouse’s benefits and the benefits he already gets from her record, it’s hard to know if it would add any income. I don’t know the reduction for the spouse-to-spouse deeming of the top of my head.
It would be much more informative if we knew when he was diagnosed with his condition and when it made it impossible for him to work along with what his DLI is based on his work prior to becoming disabled.
They make it seem like it’s some complex case. It’s sounds like it’s pretty straight forward with access to the record. For sure SSA makes things more difficult than they need to be at times, but this doesn’t sound complicated on SSA’s end.
Whether he meets any medical listings isn’t in the scope of anything the field office can help him with.
Sounds like he's not insured, and he's getting spousal benefits? They have kids? Depending on how many kids he might qualify for SSI as the kids affect the deeming comp. Lots of people come into the office, declaring "I AM DISABLED" without ever considering whether or not they meet the criteria for a benefit. So many questions not answered by this article.
I agree that there is a lot of detail missing in this article. Sensational stories may sell papers, but they do not inform.
The other posters have it right. If he was insured for retirement benefits, he'd be getting retirement benefits and not just getting spouse's benefits only.
Thus, he likely has a very insubstantial to non-existent work history which is why he isn't insured for Social Security disability. I suspect if anyone checked, he probably hasn't ever had a disability date last insured because he just never worked enough.
And, the sum of his and his wife's unearned income exceeds the SSI federal couple rate of $1261.00/mo. So, he isn't eligible for SSI either. No minor kids are mentioned (and, any "poor suffering children" would have been in this kind of sensational attack piece if there were any), plus his benefit rate is too high for both he and a child to be drawing on a spouse's PIA of that amount, so you can't deem part of wife's income to kids by having her not file for SSI.
In short, the guy is just out of luck.
Maybe he should have spent a few more years actually working and lot less time doing whatever it was he actually did (which, apparently, didn't involve working and paying Social Security taxes) before this happened to him.
"Maybe he should have spent a few more years actually working and lot less time doing whatever it was he actually did (which, apparently, didn't involve working and paying Social Security taxes) before this happened to him."
This little gem is really something.
There just isn't enough information to really get the whole picture. Journalists have been replaced by activists and Hitchcockian sensationalists. Even Washington Post and NY Times seem like high school amateurs. That being said...
It said he was DIAGNOSED in 2017. I don't know anything about his diagnosis, but I do know it took well over TEN YEARS for a doctor to diagnose one of my major afflictions. I saw several doctors who gave different diagnosises...none of which was remotely close. Maybe he was insured, appled and was denied by an ALJ...For being "not credible" because his symptoms didn't quite fit the previous diagnosis. I am not saying this was the case...All we really know is that we need more information.
Maybe he did work but worked under the table. Many people think it is a great score if they can work without paying SS or taxes. In the immediate sense, they do get a few more $ in their paycheck but if they get sick or go to retire, they get zilch. The only one who really benefits are the employers. If you are self-employed then you lose all the way around. If you don't pay in, then you don't get benefits. There should be a PSA on that issue. Just like WC is to shield employers from liability. Working under the table is not a good thing for the employees.
So what you all are saying is that in order to file an insurance claim he needed to pay into the insurance fund? Sounds a bit different when you leave the disability part out and actually state that it is insurance that needs to be paid into.
Also saying, "He may have," "we DON'T KNOW."
It’s in the title, people just don’t pay attention. I explain it like that all the time.
All this speculating that there may be a legitimate reason for his denial is almost funny (except this and many like it are extremely tragic). We see legitimate claims denied every day for ridiculous reasons. And, what he is saying about getting notices of things never requested is probably true. We commonly see claimants getting letters from DDS about forms they never submitted before they even get the forms. Any defense of this process has to be based on pure fantasy.
1052, 218 here. The process is without a doubt flawed and unjust in many ways. But there are many technical denials because someone is not insured at the time of the onset of their illness to the extent it was disabling. You have to prove disability before your DLI. I personally hate it when I see a clearly disabled person who is not currently insured because of a lapsed DLI and will scour the record looking for a supportable nexus but it is not always possible. SS dib is the best deal for insurance you will ever find, but just like any other insurance, if you let it lapse you are not covered
The problem is the word "prove." Some conditions are basically "unprovable" to a "sceptic." Disability, apparently, is a lot like "pornography..." As in, "I know it when I see it!" How else do you explain 80% payers and 20% payers? Medical records and diagnosises are not McCoy using a tricorder. MRIs and X-rays show abnormalities, but not pain. But, pain is most often the limiting factor. I kwas denied by one ALJ before being approved by another. I didn't change. My ability to work didn't change. My diagnosises didn't change. But, if you read the 2 decisions, based largely on the SAME evidence...it's inconceivable that they are talking about the same person.
That is a real problem but when it comes to subjective complaints with out some medical evidence some judges won't pay. Some pay with minimal to no medical evidence. Neither is good. Not sure what the solution is but there should be a greater migration to middle ground. But then you start infringing on judicial independence. What is the solution? Damned if I know.
Asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable is an indicator of bias...frankly, an admission of bias. A claimant deserves a fair hearing, which requires an unbiased ALJ. Biased judges should be removed. But, they won't be, because SSA appears only to care about eliminating those ALJs who appear biased FOR claimants.
Post a Comment