Can My Prior Claim Be Reopened?

Generally, initial determinations made on your claim are subject to your right to appeal, usually within 60 days. However, in certain instances, a decision which would otherwise be final and binding may be reopened or revised.

SSA may reopen a decision on its own initiative, or, a claimant may request that a previous determination be reopened. In either situation, if SSA decides to reopen a determination or decision, it may revise that determination or decision.

SSA regulations set forth the conditions under which a previous determination may be revisited. Although the regulations sound as if a party to a claim may simply request a reopening and it will be done, it is generally well established that whether or not to reopen a claim is left to the discretion of the Administration.

According to 20 C.F.R. §404.900, an Initial Determination is one made about your entitlement or your continuing entitlement to benefits or about any other matter that gives you a right to further review. Regulations differentiate between actions that are deemed initial determinations and those actions deemed not to be initial determinations.

Administrative actions that are not initial determinations may be reviewed by SSA, but are not subject to the administrative review process, and are not subject to judicial review. Denying a request to reopen a determination or a decision is considered such an action.

Therefore, denial of a request to reopen is not grounds for appeal. Nevertheless, regulations do provide for three conditions for reopening an otherwise closed case. The most generous provision allows for reopening a case for any reason within twelve months of the initial determination. Again, the refusal by SSA to reopen a case within twelve months for any reason is not subject to appeal.

The second listed condition listed is within four years (two years for SSI), for good cause. Good cause includes new and material evidence, clerical errors in computations of benefits, or evidence that, on its face, was clearly construed in error. A change in the law is not considered good cause.

Finally, a case may be reopened at any time if the determination was induced by fraud or similar fault. The regulation goes on to list what it means by similar fault, and includes instances related to death, convictions, and other clerical errors.

Most often, the request for reopening situation arises when a claimant has had a previous claim denied, but files a new claim that is subsequently approved. The question then becomes whether the previously denied claim can be reopened, effectively granting a claimant more back pay. Because of the huge backlog and the slow pace at which SSA adjudicates claims, it often happens that the request for reopening cannot be made for any reason under paragraph 1, and the good cause provisions of paragraph 2 come into play, ostensibly allowing for reopening within 4 years if the provisions can be met. As a matter of practice, the most common good cause would have to do with new and material evidence that relates back to the period of the initially denied claim.

In the end though, a claimant may not demand reopening under any of these provisions. It may only be requested. And, if denied, the decision may not be appealed.


VISIT SOCIAL SECURITY LAW TODAY

The Pursuit of Social Security Disability Benefits in A Culture of Denial

In the recent months, high denial rates among those applying for Social Security benefits, has been the topic of immense concern. Investigations into denials of specific cases have caused some to call the Social Security Administration's strategies a "culture of denial." With only a 30-40% approval rate at Initial Application, this doesn't seem far from the truth. A report published by CBS news stated that most people do not bother to appeal a denial the first time they are disapproved for benefits. Almost two-thirds of all applicants give up after their first denial, meaning millions of Americans who paid into the system and quite possibly were deserving of benefits, never received assistance. Most of those that did continue fighting for benefits were faced with long wait times- lasting over 1 year, and often times, further denials.
After a two-month investigation, the CBS report called the denials part of a "system whose own standards have been called into question." The Social Security Administration's recent budget cuts and high staff turnover has resulted in longer back logs of cases, medical experts who are rendering opinions outside their specialties and inexperienced examiners being pressured to disapprove claims in order to keep costs down.
SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue commented that "it's a very tough standard…and you can argue whether that should be the standard or not, but I'm stuck with that." However, feedback from former employees of the Social Security Administration has caused a great deal of distress and apprehension among the disabled. Trisha Cardillo, a former Social Security employee who reviewed over 200 disability cases a month out of Ohio, has stated, "We're failing the disabled on a very large scale." She added that "there were a lot of times when I was fighting with management because I wanted to approve a claim…and I had to go through so many steps and - jump through so many hurdles to do that, it just seemed ridiculous." Cardillo explained that in essence, there is a "quota system" in which "each state has different numbers and they know that a certain percentage of people, once denied, will never file an appeal."
A prime example of the results yielded by this toughened standard is Mr. Robert Veneziali' case. He is a 38 year old applicant for disability benefits who is diagnosed with rapidly progressing Multiple Sclerosis. After applying for benefits, he was turned down and told that his case could be re-examined in another 18 months. Desperate for assistance, he turned to his congressman Rep. John Hall. Hall called for a federal investigation and stated that the treatment of people like Veneziali was "unconscionable." Another case we are dealing with in California involves a claimant who is diagnosed with end stage kidney disease, waiting for dialysis. This claimant has pages of supportive records and statements from his Kidney Specialist. However, his case was initially evaluated and denied by state agency reviewers who were not even doctors. Then, the case was reviewed and denied by a Social Security medical expert who was not a specialist in kidney diseases. Finally when it reached the hearing level, it was reviewed by staff at the San Diego Office of Disability, Adjudication and Review, and was denied an immediate award despite his dire, terminal condition.
With the assistance of congressional representatives who are voicing concerns over long wait times and high denial rates, perhaps the system that Social Security is currently operating under will be improved. Recently, due to concerns expressed by the public and Members of Congress, the Administration suspended some of their processes that were creating difficulties for claimants at the hearing level. After more than 500 comments were submitted criticizing the proposed rule that had put restrictions on the submission of evidence, Commissioner Astrue officially suspended that rule. This leaves open the possibility that with enough public concern and the assistance of our elected officials, the Social Security Administration will make changes to better the system and eventually this "culture of denial" will be transformed.


VISIT SOCIAL SECURITY LAW TODAY

Social Security Disability: Why is this taking so long?

I’ve been working all my life and paying taxes. Now that I’m not able to work and need help, SSA keeps denying my claim for disability benefits. Why is this taking so long?

It’s hard to be patient when you can’t afford to go the doctor and you don’t have money for medicine food, rent or utilities. But if you think about it logically, you can begin to at least understand why this process is necessary.

Think back to when you were working. Your employer would hand you your paystub, and you’d look to find that a chunk of your pay was taken out before they even gave it to you. You were paying toward the Social Security System. But you know that the government wasn’t holding your money in an account for you in case you should one day need it. The government was giving your money to the elderly and people who could no longer work.

So suppose that some government official approached you on payday and said, “Here’s your check, but before I give it to you, I’m going to take back three hundred bucks and give it to someone who can no longer work.” Your initial reaction might initially be a negative one, but you are human, and you at least to some extent agree that humans must take care of their elderly and sick – or you would not be applying for benefits now.

But this is the tradeoff - as a member of the workforce, I’ll contribute now to those who can no longer work so that I can be treated the same when I become unable to work. With one condition: before you take my money away from me and give it to those who can no longer work, at least make them prove they can no longer work. I surely do not want to give my hard-earned money to everyone who merely claims they can no longer work.

Read Full Article
http://www.socialsecuritylaw.com/blogs/Disability-Why-So-Long.php


VISIT SOCIAL SECURITY LAW TODAY

Not Giving Up On Your Claim Proves Rewarding For Applicants

Jason Cook


A recent CBS News Investigation report revealed that of the nearly one and a half million people who were denied at the initial application level for Social Security Disability Benefits in 2006, two-thirds – or approximately one million applicants – decided not to appeal the denial. But the decision not to pursue an appeal is often a mistake, considering that most claims are not approved before a hearing is conducted.

Statistics show that only 30% of claims at the initial application level are approved. If an appeal is made, the next step is a request for reconsideration. Unfortunately, the numbers are actually worse with only 15% of the claims being awarded.

However, persistence pays off at the next level known as the hearing stage. It is here that the claimant will be able to sit before the individual deciding their claim for the first time, an Administrative Law Judge. For those claimants who decide to go forward and request a hearing, at least half will be approved for social security benefits. That number goes up even more for claimants who have a representative at the hearing.
Often claimants will decide not to appeal their case, but then at a later time, to file a new application for benefits. This is not the proper course of action for several reasons. First, those individuals have to start the whole process all over again. This, of course, means that there is a 70% chance the claim will be denied at the initial level and an 85% chance the claim will be denied on reconsideration.

The second problem with filing a new application is that the claimant’s opportunity to be heard by a Judge – where there is a real chance of winning the case- is only further delayed. Considering that it often takes 2 years or more from the time a request for a hearing is filed to when the hearing is scheduled, the time spent completing and awaiting a ruling on the subsequent application (and the request for reconsideration) add months to the seemingly endless wait time.

The third problem with filing a new application instead of appealing the previous denial is the possibility that the claimant may have inadvertently forfeited benefits that he or she would have been previously entitled to. A denial at any stage of the process that is not appealed is considered a final judgment as of the date of the denial. The practical effect of this is that a claimant who wins their case on a subsequent application cannot, with limited exceptions, receive retroactive benefits prior to the date of the previous denial.

A hypothetical example may help clarify this. John Worker became disabled on May 1, 2002. On May 1, 2003, he filed his initial application for social security disability benefits but was denied. He then filed a request for reconsideration. However, this request too was denied in a letter dated May 1, 2004. John considered requesting a hearing but was fed up with the Social Security system. After a year, John reconsidered his decision but the time had passed to appeal the previous decision. Thus John filed another initial application, this one dated May 1, 2005. This time John pursued his case all the way to the hearing stage. The Judge ruled in his favor and also found that John was entitled to retroactive benefits. However, the back pay could only go back to May 1, 2004 because of the previous denial. Thus by not pursuing the original claim, John lost out on benefits from May 1, 2002 until May 1, 2004, which could equal thousands in lost benefits.

Social Security is undoubtedly a lengthy and frustrating process, especially when seemingly strong cases are denied at the initial stages. But it pays to be patient. By appealing all the way to the hearing stage, the claimant may actually be approved quicker and receive more benefits!

APPEALING THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DECISION

You should not become discouraged if your claim is initially denied. In a recent year roughly 60% of claims were denied. An SSDI attorney will be able to determine what documentation and evidence will strengthen your claim.

LEVEL 1: RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR INITIAL CLAIM
You must request a reconsideration of your claim within sixty days of receipt of the denial letter. Reconsideration is a complete review of your claim by someone who did not take part in the first decision. They will look at all the evidence submitted when the original decision was made, plus any new evidence.
After approximately four to six months a decision will be reached on the reconsideration request. The case will either be granted benefits or denied again. In some states, this process may vary.

LEVEL 2: HEARING BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
If your claim is denied after reconsideration, you have 60 days to request an informal hearing. This will be in front of an administrative law judge who had no part in the first decision or the reconsideration of your case. The judge will listen to witnesses, review medical evidence, and decide your case. An SSDI appeal lawyer will help you prepare for the hearing and represent you at the hearing.
The Judge will not announce a decision at the administrative hearing. It usually takes at least two to three months after the hearing to receive the decision, if not longer. If the decision is favorable, you should receive your first check about eight to twelve weeks after the decision.

LEVEL 3: REVIEW BY THE APPEALS COUNCIL
If the Judge's decision is not in your favor, the next step is to request a review by The Appeals Council. This must be done within sixty days after you have received the hearing decision. You should be represented by an experienced SSI/SSDI lawyer to ensure you have the best chance of winning the appeal.
A failure to appeal by the deadline will result in having to start an entirely new claim unless you can demonstrate good cause for not filing the appeal prior to the deadline. Good cause includes illness, hospitalization, comprehension problems due to mental infirmity, or other circumstances beyond your control.
The Council looks at all requests for review, but it may deny a request if it believes the hearing decision was correct. If the Appeals Council decides to review your case, it will either decide your case itself or return it to an administrative law judge for further review.
If the Appeals Council denies your request for review, you will receive a letter explaining the denial. If the Appeals Council reviews your case and makes a decision itself, you will receive a copy of the decision. If the Appeals Council returns your case to an administrative law judge, you will receive a letter and a copy of the order.

LEVEL 4: FEDERAL COURT
If the Appeals Council denies your appeal and/or refuses to review your case, you have 60 days to file a lawsuit in a federal district court. After reviewing the record from your hearing, the Federal judge can (1) award disability benefits, (2) deny disability benefits, or (3) send your case back to a lower court for an additional hearing. It is critical to have good legal representation to give you the best chance of winning the appeal.

Visit Social Security Law Today