|
esquilax posted:most private companies that employ blue collar workers go to great lengths to manage their diabetics and heart patient employees to keep them well enough to stay at work. Where the hell are you getting this poo poo from? esquilax posted:If you are able to hold a job at Wal-mart You don't earn a sustainable income at most Wal-Mart jobs. And one thing that kills the employability of chronically ill people, like people with bad backs, diabetes, etc., is that they tend to have a high rate of absenteeism due to illness and thus can't actually, honestly, hold a lot of jobs. Most employers will not employ someone who will be out frequently dealing with medical stuff and/or might be out for a solid week when their back goes out. You're wrongly looking at this as "Could this person do this job for one day?" when you have to look at the way their actual employment would play. For example, while employers have to make accommodation for disability, including giving time off to people with a chronic disease that flares up, they don't have to pay you for those hours. A lot of people can do a job, but are realistically only going to be able to commit to 20 hours a week when they're going to be in good enough shape to do the job.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Kwyjibo posted:For those in a (reasonable, non-fraudulent) home, ATM isn't an option. I thought you meant money was being distributed by the home health agency, now it makes more sense. I misread it. esquilax posted:If you are able to hold a job at Wal-mart or you have the necessary background and ability to work in IT, you generally do not qualify for SSDI. Because, after considering medical conditions age, education, past work experience and any transferable skills, you are able to adjust to other work (which is basically the "any occupation" standard used in private disability insurance). Wal-Mart actually prefers people work under SGA, and many locations abuse the gently caress out of SSI and SSDI in order to get workers who need the income/access to cheaper medication. They would rather have someone on state programs than working a second job. I'm guessing you're not all that hip on labor news in the US, because it was the biggest expose for a while. They were trying to get people to average 25 hours or less a week. At hiring wage (8 an hour in most areas) puts your earnings at shy of 1000 bucks. esquilax posted:Half of the at-work construction workers I know are old and fat with back problems, and most private companies that employ blue collar workers go to great lengths to manage their diabetics and heart patient employees to keep them well enough to stay at work. Being old and fat doesn't prevent you from working under "any occupation" like SSDI requires, although people may additionally have disabilities that do actually prevent them from working. Do you live in one of the few union enclaves in this country? Worker protections in this country are extremely weak. I know you're not talking about commercial work I posted a huge propublica article in this very thread about millions of blue collar temporary workers that have replaced the jobs you're talking about. This is without even going into the 1099 misclassification crisis we have on top of that. There's a gently caress ton of unemployed people who don't have a strong enough background to get an office position, or don't have it as a real option in their area. Here's some articles for ya: Temporary work, Lasting Harm Sweet Sweet Death - Senator Asks OSHA About Temp Worker Buried Alive In Sugar The Expendables - How the temps who power corporate giants are getting crushed. How New York and Illinois Curb a Labor Violation While Others Fail
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
So what can be done to fix this mess? Obviously waiting two years with multiple denials, requiring a lawyer to have a decent chance of getting on the program is not acceptable. Is it that the administration is understaffed and underfunded? How can it possibly take that long to have your paperwork looked at? This is putting aside that under the current congress nothing ever gets done, of course. -Also how does this compare to the mess the VA currently still is? Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
RPZip posted:It's horrifying, but I know it makes me depressed and angry rather than just angry. It has that dint of the implacable, unchangeable, uncaring machinery of a system that can crush any objection. I don't know, maybe I'm projecting, but that's how I feel about it and I wonder if it's one reason why the thread isn't getting a lot of responses. 100% dead on for me. This and similar subjects like UI or just about any programs that exist to help the people who need it most are so loving rancid in they way they treat the very people who are depending on them to not die in a gutter is just.... I can't even come up with the right words. Hell I had trouble even clicking the thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Thanks for the thread. I worked for two years as a work comp paralegal (burned out on being part of the machine), and the two topics were often intertwined. Thinking too much about either one is pretty 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
My mom has been unable to work since she was involved in an accident. I get so angry every time she tells me how things are going, because she has had to fight every entity at every step of the process. Her old employer's insurance carriers are being as uncooperative as possible, and her initial SS application was denied, so she finally had to take me up on my offer to loan her some money. She's "lucky" in that she was able to hire a lawyer on contingency, and is applying to SS with one of those companies that helps with that, but I almost can't imagine how awful it must be for people in situations worse than hers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:My mom has been unable to work since she was involved in an accident. I get so angry every time she tells me how things are going, because she has had to fight every entity at every step of the process. Her old employer's insurance carriers are being as uncooperative as possible, and her initial SS application was denied, so she finally had to take me up on my offer to loan her some money. She's "lucky" in that she was able to hire a lawyer on contingency, and is applying to SS with one of those companies that helps with that, but I almost can't imagine how awful it must be for people in situations worse than hers. It's less that she's 'lucky' and more that she has a real case. Typically you can find a lawyer for contingency if you have a case with standing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
mugrim posted:It's less that she's 'lucky' and more that she has a real case. Typically you can find a lawyer for contingency if you have a case with standing. As someone mentioned before, standing can vary wildly and the system doesn't want to take into account individual circumstances, like if your legs or back are so hosed up you can't stand for more than ten minutes of lift anything over ten pounds but the only work available where you live requires one or both. By the strict reading of the rules you have the ability to work but the people applying the rules don't care there's no available jobs you are physically capable of doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
I thought the idea was you were meant to move to find those jobs. Like if you can do a job that is entirely seated, like a some office jobs, they expect you to move to find them. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that is how I am interpreting them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:As someone mentioned before, standing can vary wildly and the system doesn't want to take into account individual circumstances, like if your legs or back are so hosed up you can't stand for more than ten minutes of lift anything over ten pounds but the only work available where you live requires one or both. By the strict reading of the rules you have the ability to work but the people applying the rules don't care there's no available jobs you are physically capable of doing. Lol, are you for real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:Lol, are you for real? Are you complaining I used the wrong word (yes I shouldn't have used standing) or are you implying that what I said doesnt happen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:I thought the idea was you were meant to move to find those jobs. Like if you can do a job that is entirely seated, like a some office jobs, they expect you to move to find them. It is from my limited interactions but its also part of the issue. Someone who is at the point of having to apply for SSD or UI or SNAP or whatever is almost never able move, or they're already at the point living with parents or friends. And poo poo sorry should have been one post
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Are you complaining I used the wrong word (yes I shouldn't have used standing) or are you implying that what I said doesnt happen? It appears as if everything is just flying over your head. Mugrim is not talking about having the difficulty to stand, but legal standing. It is easy to get a law firm to take your case on contingency if you have a real case (standing).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:It appears as if everything is just flying over your head. Mugrim is not talking about having the difficulty to stand, but legal standing. It is easy to get a law firm to take your case on contingency if you have a real case (standing). As I said I shouldn't have used standing the legal term nor was I using it in the same way as being able to stand up, I was saying you could very easily have a situation where the spirit of the system is ignored and the letter of the rules is used. I thought the example made that clear: You may be technically employable but there is no work available you are physically capable or doing and getting a lawyer to fight for you in that case is nigh impossible. It's hard enough to win in good situations, getting an attorney willing to take it on contingency when it's going to be a long difficult fight will be a bitch. But thanks for the derisive dick replies. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
I actually practice before the SSA. If you have any theoretical questions, I'll give them a shot. I stress theoretical, if the aren't I can't answer them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:As I said I shouldn't have used standing the legal term nor was I using it in the same way as being able to stand up, I was saying you could very easily have a situation where the spirit of the system is ignored and the letter of the rules is used. I thought the example made that clear: You may be technically employable but there is no work available you are physically capable or doing and getting a lawyer to fight for you in that case is nigh impossible. It's hard enough to win in good situations, getting an attorney willing to take it on contingency when it's going to be a long difficult fight will be a bitch. No dude. For example, Binder and Binder (perhaps you've seen their commercials during daytime television? http://www.binderandbinder.com) have made MILLIONS off of representing the disabled on contingency. Firms like this are basically an unintended consequence of the labyrinthine bureaucracy surrounding SSDI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
mugrim posted:It's less that she's 'lucky' and more that she has a real case. Typically you can find a lawyer for contingency if you have a case with standing. Ehh, I'd still consider her situation pretty lucky, compared to what it could have been. There are a lot of other puzzle pieces than just the ones I mentioned, and even for the lawyer and insurance companies bit, it's very fortunate that she had the presence of mind (after getting a head injury  ) to hook up with a good law firm. If she hadn't, or if the circumstances of the accident had been even slightly different, she might have been forced to basically retire way early, with little in the way of income for decades.
Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
The max you can make on a ssa case is 6k except in rare circumstances. It is not a good way to become a rich lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The max you can make on a ssa case is 6k except in rare circumstances. It is not a good way to become a rich lawyer. It's good if you can get enough cases to develop a reliable process for pushing claims through the system, especially if that process allows you to farm most of the gruntwork out to unskilled workers or overseas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Which requires massive overhead and advertising costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Which requires massive overhead and advertising costs. Yes, hence Binder & Binder, and the 2004 law change that allows non lawyers to work on disability cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
But you know hey if my advertising was saturated enough where I had my pick of 59 year olds with less than 10 pound lifting restrictions then yeah it's an easy way to win cases on a small margin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Binder and Binder is not going to take you case if there is a chance of losing. Which was toasticles point and he is right
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Binder and Binder is not going to take you case if there is a chance of losing. Which was toasticles point and he is right That's mostly true for any claim you'd take to a small-firm plaintiff's attorney.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Binder and Binder is not going to take you case if there is a chance of losing. Which was toasticles point and he is right This is exactly why they would be so successful. They can spend time and money exclusively on "sure thing" cases that will lead to government money. Having experience in which types of disabilities are getting through the system, and probably also having some complicit doctors on retainer is going to mean some easy cases and easy money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I actually practice before the SSA. If you have any theoretical questions, I'll give them a shot. I stress theoretical, if the aren't I can't answer them. Let's say I immigrate to America from Australia (I don't know if it's important, but I heard we have some kind of welfare agreement) and I become totally and completely disabled due to an accident. At what point can I go on SSI/SSDI?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
A person in your situation may be in luck. http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/austrlia.html It looks like Australian work credits can in some circumstances be honored by SSA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:I thought the idea was you were meant to move to find those jobs. Like if you can do a job that is entirely seated, like a some office jobs, they expect you to move to find them. That's correct. The standard for other work is whether jobs exist in the national economy that an individual with the claimant's functional capacity can perform. The Agency is doing what it can to help deal with the truly massive backlog, at least at the hearings level. They're pushing toward more centralized hearings and decision writing units, with stated goals of increasing efficiency and standardization of decisions. Unfortunately, initial and reconsideration determinations are made by State agencies that are occasionally furloughed despite the availability of funds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Yeah if you are getting into the territory of whether your residual functional capacity qualifies you for ANY work, you are pretty much screwed because a talented vocational expert can come up with something usually. I lost a case where the only job my client could do was "nut sorter". It is best to win these cases at the listing level or on the "grids" as they are called.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The max you can make on a ssa case is 6k except in rare circumstances. It is not a good way to become a rich lawyer. Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: the lawyers for my mom are going after insurance companies, not the SSA. I didn't mean to start a derail 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Oh hey, a thread I can really contribute to! I used to be an advocate for SSD/SSI/etc claims, until some E/N poo poo resulted in me moving halfway across the country less than a month before I was to sit the exam to get direct-fee approved by the government. (With Disability law you do not need to be an attorney to represent someone, you only need to be: 1-of good ethical and moral character, 2-not banned from appearing before an ALJ, and 3-able to help the client with their disability claim. However, if you're not a licensed/barred attorney you cannot automatically collect your fee even with a fee agreement in place, you have to present your fee agreement to an ALJ after the client wins their benefits and the ALJ has to approve it and give you your cut. The government had a pilot program going (dunno if it still is, this was ~18 months ago) where a bunch of advocates would sit a test proving they knew the CFR, blue book, etc and it would allow them to be direct-fee approved so we wouldn't be tying up the ALJ's time with piddly poo poo like approving fee agreements.) The biggest problem with the current disability regs is that they require proof that you are doing everything that you can to treat your medical conditions and even with treatment you are still unable to work. (especially for things like mental illness - you need to prove that with meds and therapy you are still unable to work even a menial job that doesn't require focus for long periods of time like QA at a factory pulling obviously lovely items off the line - something that the VE's like to pull out where I was as a job that was sit down and didn't require the ability to focus). The problem with that is when you're not working, and you can't get on medicaid because in PA (where the bulk of our clients were) you can't get on medicaid unless you have kids pretty much, how the hell are you supposed to be seeing a doctor at least once a month. I left before the ACA was put into place, so I don't know how it changed things, but I know before in order to get on medicaid without any dependents you had to be found disabled...to be found disabled you had to be seeing a doctor, and to see a doctor you needed to be on medicaid.... And in terms of attorneys - we'd take literally anything that came up so long as it had a snowballs chance in hell (IE, wasn't a 25 year old with just stand/lift limits, or wasn't a mental case with substance abuse issues, etc), with the intent of dropping lovely cases once we got the E-File (the nice little electronic records of everything to do with your claim, including any past applications, C/Es, what your doctors have submitted, etc) because there's so little work we do at the initial/recon level that the 10 seconds of work to file an appeal after the initial gets denied is worth it for the chance that they get approved and we get our check anyway. If you are capable of dealing with little bits of paperwork yourself, I highly recommend not hiring an attorney/advocate until you file an appeal for a hearing. You definitely want rep before an ALJ, but prior to that, there's really not a whole lot we would do beyond checking in to make sure you were going to your doctors appointments, etc. If you had a decent case, we'd work with you to find medical providers that were sliding scale, etc in your area, but there were some times where we literally couldn't do anything, because there was just no help available.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Oh hey, thread! I'm in the middle of filling out my Continuing Disability Review(SSA-454-BK) paperwork right now!  This is my third review in eleven years, I think. I get them confused with Medicaid and the Dept. of Rehab Services who punted my rear end last December. The amount of paperwork and spend downs I have to deal with to try to remain independent and cover my medications and oxygen is exhausting. I do have Medicare, but they don't cover everything, and the State of IL thinks I have an extra $198 a month to spend before I qualify for Medicaid again. That's just crazy talk. I'm grateful for what I get, though. I squeak by. I am pretty sick, though. I have pulmonary hypertension, sarcoidosis, CHF, clotting disorders, all kinds of autoimmune fuckery. One swell guy told me during the last election cycle that I have already outlived any money that I've paid into the system, and I should stop being a leech on society. Cannot wait for the 2016 Presidential race. I did qualify on my own, first try, for SSD. I worked as a CNA before I became disabled, so I kept pretty detailed records of my own extensive medical history. The best advice I can give anyone is to really learn about their condition, and understand medical terminology as it applies to their records. Don't expect someone else to be an advocate for you. fake edit: What the poo poo, Lord Windy? I realize that you posted a few days ago, but every person I know from Oz has told me that you guys have the best programs down there, and you don't let interlopers in to enjoy what you have. Why do you want our cheese?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
on the left posted:This is exactly why they would be so successful. They can spend time and money exclusively on "sure thing" cases that will lead to government money. Having experience in which types of disabilities are getting through the system, and probably also having some complicit doctors on retainer is going to mean some easy cases and easy money. They are lawyers tho. Give them the choice of 3 cases they think are easy winners or 3 (or even 1) that is not only going to be difficult but might lose I don't think anyone has to think more than 1/10 of a second which they'll take. They are in business to make money, and while you can find one if your lucky the ones that advertise on TV are the ones looking for quick easy payouts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Considering it keeps me from being homeless, in a state hospital or a prison I don't really have any complaints about the SSDI system. If you pay FICA, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2014 19:52
|
|
