tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post2218696306764961874..comments2024-03-28T21:59:42.817-04:00Comments on Social Security News: Evaluation Of Medical Evidence Regulations Sent To OMBUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-3331557903204853792016-12-19T12:42:58.369-05:002016-12-19T12:42:58.369-05:00why dose it take the ffod stamp office only 1 to 3...why dose it take the ffod stamp office only 1 to 3 days to give $200 in food stamps.....but the ssi office take 1 to 3 years to give just $600 more....maby some poeple need to shoot up the ssi office.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-9071359393825583292016-12-16T08:40:16.871-05:002016-12-16T08:40:16.871-05:00A "bad ALJ" (i.e., low paying) will deny...A "bad ALJ" (i.e., low paying) will deny a case regardless of the well supported opinions of disabling restrictions by the treating physicians. However, for us, this is one of the few instances where we can convince the Appeals Council to remand the case. If the ALJ ignores, or does not properly explain why he/she is not adopting the restrictions of the treating physician, the AC will often issue a remand order. If the treating physician rule is eliminated, the AC will become even of a rubber-stamp-the-ALJ-denial body then it already is now. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-26077902344326545512016-12-16T05:49:27.821-05:002016-12-16T05:49:27.821-05:00There's a pretty big difference, 8:22. Treati...There's a pretty big difference, 8:22. Treating physicians have to be much more careful than agency non-examiners and CE's. That's because they owe a legal duty to the claimant and are liable for malpractice if they screw up and give poor advice that results in their injury. Not so for agency non-examiners and CE's. In other words, if a treating doc negligently says a person with a bad back can lift 50 lbs. and they re-injure it as a result, the treating doc is liable. If an agency non-examiner, CE, or SSA testifying medical expert does the same thing, no liability because no treating relationship and no duty owed. If they were potentially liable, I predict you'd hear much more careful and accurate testimony from them. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-21161290084242231492016-12-15T20:22:50.955-05:002016-12-15T20:22:50.955-05:00To those lamenting the death of the "controll...To those lamenting the death of the "controlling weight" rule -- do you actually think this is a bad thing for the administration of disability claims, or are you only concerned about how it affects overall pay rates? It seems that reps often cite the treating physician rule as a justification for accepting opinions that a client is disabled even when there are no notes or findings to support them. They argue that the doctor knows the client the best, so SSA should take the statements at face value. Or, this doctor treated the patient for years, so "obviously she was observing more than she wrote down."<br /><br />If the goal is to get an accurate assessment of a person's functioning, why should SSA look first at who the author is, rather than what he/she has to say? Just as reps like to argue that DDS doctors and CEs are predisposed to denying claims, treating doctors having absolutely nothing to lose by arbitrarily checking boxes indicating that a patient will need unscheduled breaks or will miss four days of work per month. It never made sense to set up a hierarchy based on who's seen the patient the most, because the "longitudinal" insight that supposedly makes those doctors special is often not reflected anywhere in their opinions. In some cases, they rarely even seen the patient, and they just defer to whatever was written by a staffer in their clinics.<br /><br />The current regs probably wouldn't be a problem if reps didn't play it fast and loose with the section that requires treating source opinions to be "well supported" and "not inconsistent" with other substantial evidence. They tend to argue that whatever the treating source says is gospel unless SSA can point to overwhelming evidence that it's not true. The regs were never meant to shift the burden of proof like that, but that's how reps and some courts have interpreted them. A bad disability opinion is a bad disability opinion, whether the author has seen the patient once or a hundred times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-10275361086025351372016-12-15T17:44:14.065-05:002016-12-15T17:44:14.065-05:00NOSSCR and NADR no longer hold any sway with SSA o...NOSSCR and NADR no longer hold any sway with SSA or have enough money in the bank to do any lobbying. They have become toothless tigers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-39926137975657129902016-12-15T11:58:46.671-05:002016-12-15T11:58:46.671-05:00Nosscr did draft a well-written response. Howeve...Nosscr did draft a well-written response. However, lobbying and policy-making/influence are more than just drafting written responses. That is the bare minimum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-36056028579771961092016-12-15T11:13:48.100-05:002016-12-15T11:13:48.100-05:00Well said, 10:55. Call my cynical, but I think the...Well said, 10:55. Call my cynical, but I think these rules will meet their intended purpose, i.e., decrease the amount of awards. I think we're still seeing the Conn backlash which appears to have no end in sight. NOSSCR, for what it's worth, published their written response to this and the other regulations in this month's newsletter. They made valid points, which seem to be falling on deaf ears. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-65935752183017889022016-12-15T10:55:24.846-05:002016-12-15T10:55:24.846-05:00I agree totally with @9:26. I can foresee low pa...I agree totally with @9:26. I can foresee low paying ALJ's disregard favorable Medical Source Statements or opinions with a substantial longitudinal treating history to the claimant and give controlling weight to CE's who have only examined the claimant for 15 minutes and render damaging wholly inconsistent opinions. <br /><br />I suspect with this approach a low paying ALJ will only need to state that does not give controlling weight to the treating physician opinions with a cursory statement along the lines of "I find it not supported or consistent with the record as a whole." I suspect that even in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary this would give a low paying ALJ a license to render these decisions as it allows ALJ's, even more, subjectivity in their opinions. <br /><br />These new regulations seem to do the opposite of what they are intended to in that the decisions will be less predictable or consistent unless you look at the stats or bias of the ALJ rendering the decision.<br /><br />I am dismayed at the current leadership in the Administration. But I am even more dismayed at the lack of aggressiveness and acquiescence of the industry organizations such as NADR, NOSSCR, etc that have lobbying groups and close relationships within the Administration. <br /><br />I would like to hear others thoughts on not just these new rules but also on what if anything should or can still be done?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-78628054413740140602016-12-15T09:26:27.565-05:002016-12-15T09:26:27.565-05:00So the last paragraph does eliminate giving contro...So the last paragraph does eliminate giving controlling weight to the treating physician. Of all the proposed and new regulations flying around right now, I think this is the most damaging to claimants. This will give the low-paying ALJs an even more free pass to deny claims, no matter the opinions of the treating medical experts who know the claimant better. What are the chances this all gets finalized by 12/20? Seems like an awfully small window to get this done, I hope. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-51308250712725778542016-12-15T09:18:14.113-05:002016-12-15T09:18:14.113-05:00Charles, you keep saying these rules have to be pu...Charles, you keep saying these rules have to be published before Dec. 20, but I have no idea what happens if they miss this deadline. Does it delay them a few months? Does SSA have to start over? Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com