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 New "Federal Reviewing Official"

A new position at the federal level called the “Federal Reviewing Official," will be created. This Official will review initial DDS determinations upon the request of the claimant. For a long time, there have been complaints that initial determinations were being made inconsistently, unfairly and inaccurately. The new Federal Review Official will seek to ensure that determinations are made correctly at the beginning stages of the Social Security Disability process. This Official will have the authority to make a decision as to whether an individual is disabled. The Federal Review Officials will be attorneys, centrally managed, and better suited to perform the function of documenting evidence and writing legally sound decisions as to benefits. An individual may submit evidence at any time while the Official is reviewing their case, even up until the decision is issued. An individual may request review by a Federal Reviewing Official within 60 days after receiving notice of their initial denial. Further, under this new rule, if a claimant does not make a request for review within these 60 days, they can still request an extension of time to do so even after the 60 day period has lapsed.

VISIT SOCIAL SECURITY LAW TODAY

Evaluating Severity of Mental Impairments

John M. FitzGerald

When evaluating the severity of mental impairments in a Social Security Disability or SSI claim, The Social Security Administration (SSA) must follow a specific technique at each level in the administrative review process.

The technique is meant to identify the need for additional evidence to determine impairment severity, consider and evaluate functional consequences of the mental disorder as relating to ability to work, and to present findings in a clear and consistent manner.

SSA first evaluates pertinent symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings to determine whether a medically determinable mental impairment is present. If determined that a medically determinable mental impairment exists, SSA must specify the symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings that substantiate the presence of the impairment and document findings.

The degree of functional limitation resulting from the impairment is then rated.
Assessment of functional limitations is a “highly individualized process” that requires consideration of all relevant evidence to obtain a picture of overall degree of functional limitation. All relevant clinical signs and laboratory findings are considered, along with the effects of symptoms, and how ability to function may be affected by factors such as chronic mental disorders, structured settings, medication, and other treatment.

The degree of functional limitation is based on the extent to which one’s impairment interferes with ability to function independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis. Thus, such factors as the quality and level of overall functional performance, recurrence of episodes, the amount of supervision or assistance one requires, and the settings in which one is able to function must all be considered.

SSA has identified four broad functional areas in which to rate the degree of functional limitation: Activities of daily living, social functioning concentration, persistence, or pace, and episodes of decompensation.

The first three functional areas are rated using a five-point scale:
None, mild, moderate, marked, and extreme.

The degree of limitation in the fourth functional area is rated using a four-point scale: None, one or two, three, four or more.

The last point on each scale represents a degree of limitation that is incompatible with the ability to do any gainful activity.



After rating the degree of functional limitation, the severity of one’s mental impairment must be determined. If the degree of one’s limitation in the first three functional areas is "none" or "mild" and "none" in the fourth area, the conclusion is one’s impairment is “not severe,” unless evidence indicates there is more than a minimal limitation in ability to do basic work activities.

If one’s mental impairment is severe, it is then determine whether it meets or equals a listed mental disorder. This is done by comparing the medical findings and rating the degree of functional limitation to the criteria of the relevant listing. At the initial and reconsideration levels of the administrative review process, the presence or absence of the criteria and the rating of the degree of functional limitation is recorded on a standard document, known as the Psychiatric Review Technique.

At subsequent levels, the presence or absence of the criteria and the rating of the degree of functional limitation is recorded in the decision, and must show the significant history, including examination and laboratory findings, and the functional limitations that were considered in reaching a conclusion about the severity of the mental impairment. The decision must also include a specific finding as to the degree of limitation in each of the functional areas described above.

If determined that a severe mental impairment neither meets nor equals a listing, one’s residual functional capacity is then assessed at step four of the sequential evaluation process, as in any other case.


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!