I received a number of answers to yesterday's "quiz", many of them having to do with the Vocational Expert testimony in the case. Those answers may have merit but I am sure that some would argue with them.
The issue that I was asking about is indisputable. It strongly appears that no one involved either at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level, the Appeals Council level or the District Court level recognized that the allegation of statutory blindness changed everything.
For purposes of statutory blindness, the date last insured for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, which is what the Plaintiff in this case was trying to get, requires only the claimant be fully insured. The separate standard of disability insured status is dropped. This makes it much easier for a person who is blind to meet the insured status requirement.
It is conceivable that a person would last meet the fully insured and disability insured standard on the same date but that would be rare. If that had happened it should have been addressed in the ALJ decision. Enough of that decision is quoted that it seems most unlikely that this is the case. It is certainly possible that the Plaintiff in this case has never met the statutory blindness requirements but that is impossible to tell from this opinion since both the ALJ and the District Court stopped looking at the evidence after the date that the claimant last met the special disability insured requirement. Indeed, it appears that there was little or no evidence in the record after the date that the Plaintiff last met the special disability insured requirement because no one thought that was relevant -- but it was!
Instead of being a case where the ALJ needed only to look at the evidence up to the date that the Plaintiff last met the special disability insured status requirement, which was December 31, 2001, this was a case in which the ALJ needed to look at the evidence of all of the Plaintiff's impairments, which went beyond visual problems, up to December 31, 2001 under the regular disability standard but then look solely at the visual problems to determine whether the Plaintiff was statutorily blind until the date that the Plaintiff was last fully insured. This makes this a unusual and complicated case. That complication should have been addressed in the ALJ decision but it was not. It is entirely possible, even probable, that the Plaintiff remains fully insured today. You only need 40 quarters of coverage to be fully insured for life and this Plaintiff probably earned those 40 quarters a long time ago. Since visual problems often get worse with time and since December 31, 2001 was quite some time ago this opinion gives me an uneasy feeling.
So who got it right? Here are the ones I received:
So what does the low number of correct answers tell us? What does it tell us that this case went so far with so fundamental an error? Anybody slapping their head? What do you think?
The issue that I was asking about is indisputable. It strongly appears that no one involved either at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level, the Appeals Council level or the District Court level recognized that the allegation of statutory blindness changed everything.
For purposes of statutory blindness, the date last insured for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, which is what the Plaintiff in this case was trying to get, requires only the claimant be fully insured. The separate standard of disability insured status is dropped. This makes it much easier for a person who is blind to meet the insured status requirement.
It is conceivable that a person would last meet the fully insured and disability insured standard on the same date but that would be rare. If that had happened it should have been addressed in the ALJ decision. Enough of that decision is quoted that it seems most unlikely that this is the case. It is certainly possible that the Plaintiff in this case has never met the statutory blindness requirements but that is impossible to tell from this opinion since both the ALJ and the District Court stopped looking at the evidence after the date that the claimant last met the special disability insured requirement. Indeed, it appears that there was little or no evidence in the record after the date that the Plaintiff last met the special disability insured requirement because no one thought that was relevant -- but it was!
Instead of being a case where the ALJ needed only to look at the evidence up to the date that the Plaintiff last met the special disability insured status requirement, which was December 31, 2001, this was a case in which the ALJ needed to look at the evidence of all of the Plaintiff's impairments, which went beyond visual problems, up to December 31, 2001 under the regular disability standard but then look solely at the visual problems to determine whether the Plaintiff was statutorily blind until the date that the Plaintiff was last fully insured. This makes this a unusual and complicated case. That complication should have been addressed in the ALJ decision but it was not. It is entirely possible, even probable, that the Plaintiff remains fully insured today. You only need 40 quarters of coverage to be fully insured for life and this Plaintiff probably earned those 40 quarters a long time ago. Since visual problems often get worse with time and since December 31, 2001 was quite some time ago this opinion gives me an uneasy feeling.
So who got it right? Here are the ones I received:
- Anonymous
- JOA
- Anonymous
- Anonymous
- Anonymous
- Ralph Wilborn
- Anonymous
So what does the low number of correct answers tell us? What does it tell us that this case went so far with so fundamental an error? Anybody slapping their head? What do you think?
