Social Security Disability Advice CONNECT

Off-topic :: Snow

Insider (Ret) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:15:25 GMT

Author: Insider (Ret)
Subject: Snow
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:15 pm (GMT 0)

For those of you who might want or need to reach ODAR and/or the Appeals Council, be advised that you will not be able to do so today, Tuesday the 9th. Both Washington DC (ODAR headquarters in Northern VA) and SSA Headquarters in Woodlawn MD (suburban Baltimore) are closed. We have another major winter storm bearing down on us bringing, they say, 6-16 inches in DC, more like 10-20 inches here in Baltimore. Problem is, there is no place to put any more snow. Snow plows (of which we have seen none here on Federal Hill) are worthless when there is no place to push the snow. So this snow is simply going to sit here, collapsing more roofs, until it warms up and melts.

Off-topic :: RE: What to do with 10 hours at an airport with 2 toddlers

David Traver — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:44:35 GMT

Author: David Traver
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 04:44 am (GMT 0)

God should get his butt over to Haiti and let that traveler's aid lady do her thing!

I loved that game. It proves that the Packers are only one team removed from being world champs. The Packers lost to the best!
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
https://germaniapublishing.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Disability Law :: RE: Why is Summary Judgment Used?

Flatlander — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:41:18 GMT

Author: Flatlander
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 04:41 am (GMT 0)

In the District of VT (and I assume the entire 2d Cir), the procedure is now a "Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner."

Off-topic :: RE: What to do with 10 hours at an airport with 2 toddlers

CrescentCity — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:36:25 GMT

Author: CrescentCity
Subject: Miracles in South Florida
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:36 pm (GMT 0)

I see God was busy this weekend in South Florida - working a small miracle for the Traver family and a huge miracle for the WORLD CHAMPION NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, the city of New Orleans and all of their long suffering fans. It only took 43 years!

WHO DAT!
_________________
Crescent City a/k/a Troll

Disability Law :: RE: Why is Summary Judgment Used?

MikeWalters — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:49:35 GMT

Author: MikeWalters
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 09:49 pm (GMT 0)

I weigh into an area from which I should refrain weighing in because I rarely litigated even when I was in private practice. But a quick search reveals dozens of cases in which Circuit Courts have stated that the standard of review of a District Court decision in a denial of Social Security benefits is de novo. Moreover, outside of the administrative law context (in admin law there is of course deference to the findings of fact of an administrative agency) the standard of review for summary judgment is always de novo.

I am aware of the incongruity in calling it summary judgment, but I'm curious if you are aware of caselaw that indicates it makes a difference?

Disability Law :: DAA and self-medication

JOA — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:44:04 GMT

Author: JOA
Subject: DAA and self-medication
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 09:44 pm (GMT 0)

This is the third and possibly the last in series of posts about DAA, following comments about disentanglement and periods of abstinence. It's good to pause at this point to call attention to the disclaimer below. These are private-capacity comments. No one ought to confuse them with official SSA statements.

The abiding theme of the things I have posted about so far—the DAA teletype, POMS, multiple internal memos—is that a determination that DAA is material is possible "only when the evidence establishes" the extent of the limitations that would exist were DAA to stop. When there are co-existing mental impairments, evidence about the level of functioning during periods of abstinence is the obvious candidate for the best basis of disentangling DAA-related limitations. Although as internal SSA instructions have pointed out, even here there can be complications, as for when the periods of abstinence are in the kinds of structured settings (detox, rehab) that might attenuate the non-DAA related symptoms.

The most recent policy statement I can find about all this points out that periods of abstinence are not the only means by which an adjudicator might disentangle. From the same 4/09 policy statement I have been quoting, there is this:

Quote:

If there is no evidence from a period of nonuse, it is sometimes possible to determine whether the person would be disabled if the DAA were to stop; for example, based on medical evidence that shows a worsening of a co-occurring impairment(s) only during periods of acute intoxication, and evidence showing what impairment-related limitations remain after the acute effects of intoxication subside.

I read this to be about this not uncommon situation: ongoing DAA marked by intermittent binges that correlate with symptoms provoking psychiatric admissions, sometimes involuntary. In this circumstance, it is the pattern of correlation that might qualify under the heading of "when the evidence establishes" the extent of limitations were DAA to stop. But even here there are potential complications. So the very next paragraph in the 4/09 memo is this, about self-medication (MC/PC=medical consultant/psychological consultant):

Quote:

We also caution that adjudicators should be careful not to overlook the common situation in which an individual with a serious mental disorder (such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) is “self-medicating”. Evidence showing worsening of a co-occurring mental disorder during periods of intoxication may not be demonstrating that DAA is material; rather, it may be demonstrating the frequency with which the person is experiencing exacerbations of the co-occurring mental disorder. There is no clearcut guidance we can give for making this determination. In this case, the MC/PC’s professional knowledge and judgment, together with the specific facts of the case, will be especially important.

_________________
I've posted this in my private capacity. What I post might be wrong. Probably, it IS wrong. Any errors are my own. Please don't infer any SSA approval for what I post.

Disability Law :: RE: Why is Summary Judgment Used?

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:27:47 GMT

Author:
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 05:27 pm (GMT 0)

The problem or potential problem is that the circuit court will give some kind of deference to the district court's decision because its summary judgment. On review of summary judgment, isn't it the clearly erroneous standard for facts? Be that as it may, this has nothing to do with judicial review of a social security decision.

Disability Law :: RE: Why is Summary Judgment Used?

David Axinn — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:21:38 GMT

Author: David Axinn
Subject: Summary Judgment
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 05:21 pm (GMT 0)

Summary Judgment makes no sense - if we look a the S.J. rule, we should be supporting our motion with affidavits and all sorts of extraneous material. The Court should just issue a briefing schedule as the appellate courts do. But it appears to be a longstanding custom, and is a familiar procedure to a trial court.

Once the form is in your computer, it doesn't take long to prepare and file the motion, so why complain.

Off-topic :: Ubuntu Tip : Easy way to enable font smoothing in Wine

David Traver — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:03:13 GMT

Author: David Traver
Subject: Ubuntu Tip : Easy way to enable font smoothing in Wine
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 05:03 pm (GMT 0)

"Ubuntu Tip : Easy way to enable font smoothing in Wine" Ubuntu Tip : Easy way to enable font smoothing in Wine | Ubuntu Geek, http://www.ubuntugeek.com/ubuntu-tip-easy-way-to-enable-font-smoothing-in-wine.html (last visited Feb. 8, 2010).

This is quick and easy for Wine (for your Microsoft programs running under Ubuntu).

Tip, to cut and paste the commands into the terminal, go to Applications >> Accessories >> Terminal to open the terminal

Use cut and paste to enter the two commands, one at a time, hitting return after you enter each one.

Enjoy.
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
https://germaniapublishing.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Off-topic :: What to do with 10 hours at an airport with 2 toddlers

David Traver — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:29:45 GMT

Author: David Traver
Subject: What to do with 10 hours at an airport with 2 toddlers
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 04:29 pm (GMT 0)

We had a lovely cruise on the Holland America ship, Eurodam. It was a quiet week with the girls, sand, sea, food, fun. etc. I highly recommend Holland America. Perfect.

Upon return from seven nights at sea, we raced to the airport for an early flight back home, pre-printed boarding passes from the ship in hand. We learned that the eastern seaboard was closed due to a blizzard. Our connecting flight was DOA.

AirTran would plop us into a direct flight leaving in 10 hours. Please come back then, no we cannot check your bags, no there is nothing else that can be done, etc. This was Super-Bowl weekend in Miami, and everything in southern Florida was full of people, including the hotels, rental cars, and the airport. Consequently, the airport and all of southern Florida was like a very large room full of mousetraps loaded with ping-pong balls, into which somebody tossed a shoe.

The prospect of spending 10 hours at the Fort Lauderdale airport was nasty. We ran through all of the options, discovering none. We almost consigned ourselves to 10 hours of flat butts, expensive restaurants, and sour kids.

Wisely, my wife went to the traveler's aid booth. The wonderful woman there knew just what to do. She picked up the phone, called the Hilton, and explained the problem. The Hilton promptly sent a free shuttle, picked us up, and let us enjoy the pool all day for free. We played, rocked in big comfortable hammocks, reclined by the pool, and had a nice time as the girls frolicked. Later, we ate at the hotel restaurant (not free) and then enjoyed holding our girls as they napped happily for hours on the soft sofas in the lounge. We watched the blizzard on the Weather Chanel, watched the news, saw a bunch of guys driving fast in a circle in a car race on another TV (a metaphor for something very weird I suppose), and drank diet Coke as the girls snoozed. Then the free shuttle took us back to the airport.

Thanks to the nice folks at the Fort Lauderdale airport and the great thoughtfulness of the Hilton folks, our last day of vacation was another day of rest and fun, not a wasted day of mild discomfort. The girls thought it was just another fun part of the vacation.

Thanks Hilton! We'll never spend another wasted day at an airport again.
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
https://germaniapublishing.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Disability Law :: DAA & periods of abstinence

JOA — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:31:41 GMT

Author: JOA
Subject: DAA & periods of abstinence
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 01:31 pm (GMT 0)

SSA's recent invitation for comment on "the procedures we follow when we evaluate DAA." This invitation covered this specific question:

Quote:

How long a period of abstinence or nonuse we should
consider to determine whether DAA is material to our determination of
disability?

SSA's policy wonks ought to have written "in determining whether DAA is material." The problem with the words they chose—"to determine whether DAA is material"—is that it allows for a certain kind of paranoia to conclude that SSA was planning to require that there be a period of abstinence before there could be a conclusion that DAA is not material. I argue below that this kind of thinking ignores SSA's long history of policy statements related to period of abstinence, a mistake that is even more apparent when one examines internal policy statements.

What's more, to interpret SSA's invitation as signaling a deeply restrictive policy shift for DAA involves piling idiocy on top of ignorance: as long as SSA sticks with its disentanglement policy, then requiring a period of abstinence means more determination of "not material," not fewer.

I resist the temptation to say more about this kind of reasoning.

Periods of abstinence have been part of SSA's policy pronouncements right from the beginning. Even before the famous DAA teletype, SSA sent around policy instructions that cited a period of at least 30 days as an example of evidence relevant to whether DAA is material. The DAA teletype itself shows that this prompted the following question: "Is this an example or is it to be used as an adjudicative rule?"

This got the following answer (see Q&A no. 30):

Quote:

A. It was intended only as an example. The time period of at least 1 month was not intended to imply that drug-free periods of less than 1 month should not be considered when determining whether DAA is material. To clarify this point, we deleted the words "at least" when we placed the example in DI 90070.050D.3.

An internal 10/02 memo to State agencies in the Boston region restated the principle that "[d]ocumentation of a period of abstinence could provide the most useful information . . . ." This memo went on to say this (emphasis in the original)("MC/PC" means medical consultant/psychological consultant):

Quote:

However, the existence of a period of abstinence in and of itself is not determinative either way as to remaining limitations. The controlling issue is not whether there has been a substance-free period, but whether there is evidence to permit the MC/PC to project what limitations would remain if the claimant stopped using drugs or alcohol.

Please note how the emphasis on evidence is inconsistent with the application of any presumptions. What's more, this 10/02 memo also pointed out that periods of abstinence needed to be considered in context:

Quote:

Care should be exercised in assessing the circumstances under which a period of sobriety takes place. For example, if it occurs in a detox or rehab setting, consideration should be given to whether the structure and support provided in this setting attenuate other symptoms of the co-existing mental impairment(s).

A 7/04 memo to State agencies in the New York region shows that not everybody had read and understood the it's-only-an-example instructions in the DAA teletype about periods of abstinence. The comment in 7/04 from a State agency person was that "[t]he 30-day standard is confusing as it stands."

This got the following emphatic answer (emphasis in the original):

Quote:

First, there is no 30-day standard. The section cited is an example that illustrates when the evidence allowed an MC to separate out the effects of use from the effects of the other impairment(s) after a "length of time sufficient to allow the acute effects of intoxication and withdrawal to abate" and then determine that the claimant would not be disabled if use stopped, so DAA was material. The "1 month" issue was addressed in questions 27, 30, 31, 34, and 35 of EM 96-200 dated August 30, 1996.

This brings us up to the 4/09 policy statement I quoted in the earlier post from the Office of Medical Listings Improvement. Speaking to this same issue of periods of abstinence, OMLI said this (emphasis in the original):

Quote:

There is no standard for the length of the substance-free period because the length of time for the acute effects of intoxication and withdrawal to abate will vary by substance and individual. The key is whether the evidence establishes that an individual is disabled, or not disabled, absent the effects of substance use.

Again, please note how a requirement for evidence is inconsistent with applying any presumptions about DAA. OMLI went on to essentially restate what had been said 16 years before:

Quote:

It is most likely that you will need evidence from a period of nonuse in cases involving co-occurring mental disorders in which the separate effects of the mental disorders are not clear. We do not prescribe or require a specific length of time for a period of abstinence because the periods will vary based on the type of substance and the particular effects on the person. We intended the example of the 1-month period of abstinence in EM-96200 to illustrate the fact that, in some situations, it may not be possible to separate the effects of drug or alcohol use from the effects of the other impairment(s) until the individual has been abstinent for a length of time sufficient to allow the acute effects of intoxication and withdrawal to abate.

If any of you are planning to submit comments in response to SSA's invitation, please do refresh your memory about what's in the DAA teletype. It wouldn't be a bad idea to reread 404.1535, and maybe visit the relevant POMS section. If you do all these things, you will reduce the chances that your comments will make you look like a horse's patootie.

For the next post: DAA as self-medication.

N.B.: The internal policy statements I've quoted above are those that can be found on a quick search. We may be sure that there are many other similar policy statements. Although I'm willing to quote from internal policy statements, I'm not willing to share the originals on Connect.
_________________
I've posted this in my private capacity. What I post might be wrong. Probably, it IS wrong. Any errors are my own. Please don't infer any SSA approval for what I post.

Disability Law :: RE: DAA disentanglement

David Traver — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:29:02 GMT

Author: David Traver
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 06:29 am (GMT 0)

Quote:

"[Federal Register: January 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 19)] [Notices] [Page 4900] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29ja10-128] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION [Docket No. SSA-2009-0081] Drug Addiction and Alcoholism AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Request for Comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We are requesting your comments about our operating procedures for determining disability for persons whose drug addiction or alcoholism (DAA) may be a contributing factor material to our determination of disability. DATES: To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than March 30, 2010. "

FR Doc 2010-1834, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-1834.htm (last visited Feb. 8, 2010).
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
https://germaniapublishing.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Disability Law :: DAA disentanglement

JOA — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:02:02 GMT

Author: JOA
Subject: DAA disentanglement
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 01:02 pm (GMT 0)

This is the first of at least a couple of posts commenting on SSA's policy about drug addiction and alcoholism (DAA). I mean to argue in these posts that there are no good indications that SSA means to do anything more in the near future than publish its DAA policy in a more formal setting, with perhaps some neatening up around the edges, particularly for how to draw inferences from periods of abstinence. I offer this only as my own understanding. Please see the disclaimer below.

For this first post I will only discuss a foundational question about the need to disentangle.

The underlying principle under existing 20 CFR 404.1535 is that a determination that DAA is material requires an assessment of what limitations would exist if DAA stopped. The regulations explain that in making such determinations:

Quote:

[W]e will evaluate which of your current physical and mental limitations, upon which we based our current disability determination, would remain if you stopped using drugs or alcohol and then determine whether any or all of your remaining limitations would be disabling.

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-1535.htm

This language imposed a positive obligation: as part of determining whether DAA is material, SSA will evaluate the physical and mental limitations that would remain. By my reading, this will-evaluate and would-remain language allows for no presumptions. That is, SSA adjudicators cannot take it as a starting point that a substance abuse/dependence disorder affects functioning.

Treating 20 CFR 404.1535 as imposing a positive obligation to disentangle the effects of DAA from other impairments fits with the following language from POMS DI 790070:

Quote:

SSA will make a finding that DAA is material only when the evidence establishes that the individual would not be disabled if he/she stopped using drugs or alcohol.

http:/policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/links/0490070050

Here, the key language here is "only when the evidence establishes." "Only" is restrictive. It precludes finding a material DAA condition when the evidence does not establish the non-DAA limitations. The evidence does not establish that DAA is material not just when there are positive indications of a comorbid impairment that is disabling all on its own, but also when it's not possible to disentangle the effects of a combination of impairments, one of which is a substance abuse/dependence disorder.

The POMS section I have quoted dates to 1996, shortly after the questions and answers about DAA policy in the famous "DAA teletype" (more recently published as Emergency Message 96200).

In May 2009, a central office policy component, the Office of Medical Listing Improvement, had occasion to answer some DAA questions that had come up in the Atlanta region. Part of this clarification involved simply quoting the DAA teletype, from Question 27, with some instructive emphasis (italics supplied by OMLI):

Quote:

[A] finding that DAA is material “will be made only when the evidence establishes that the individual would not be disabled if he/she stopped using drugs/alcohol.”

Do you see? When you emphasize that disentangling is possible "only when the evidence establishes," you've got the same only-when positive requirement that comes out of the reading of 404.1535 that I have offered above.

If SSA is planning any about-face for its DAA policy, then at least for disentanglement, this will require changing a policy that it was still preaching to front line adjudicators as recently as May 2009. We can't rule this out, of course. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? But it certainly seems unlikely.

Next post: periods of abstinence.
_________________
I've posted this in my private capacity. What I post might be wrong. Probably, it IS wrong. Any errors are my own. Please don't infer any SSA approval for what I post.

Disability Law :: RE: Demo Project Update - HR 4532 passed in the House...

Olan Barnes — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:27:05 GMT

Author: Olan Barnes
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 04:27 am (GMT 0)

Even though I am retired I am happy for you and all the other extremely competent non attorney reps I have been fortunate to work with since my retirement from a DDS and that goes especially for you and yours and my good friend Kathy Powell as well.

Disability Law :: Demo Project Update - HR 4532 passed in the House...

TCardillo — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:38:28 GMT

Author: TCardillo
Subject: Demo Project Update - HR 4532 passed in the House...
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:38 pm (GMT 0)

...today, under Suspension of Rules provisions, 412-6-15. Overwhelming support to make fee withholding and direct payment for attorneys in SSI claims and for qualified non-attorney representatives in both DIB and SSI claims permanent.

Here is a link to the vote: [url]http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll047.xml[url]

Disability Law :: RE: Why is Summary Judgment Used?

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:08:13 GMT

Author: Unknown
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 09:08 pm (GMT 0)

I have seen the suggestion that instead of summary judgment the proper request would be for judgment on the pleadings.
Based on what are admittedly beginning to be rather distant memories of having once been a law clerk to a circuit court judge, I don't think it makes any difference for appellate review.

Disability Law :: RE: 1099's

CrescentCity — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:30:12 GMT

Author: CrescentCity
Subject: The Answer
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 08:30 pm (GMT 0)

This looks like the answer- (should have researched before posting):

Quote:

Generally, pursuant to section 6041 of the IRC, SSA is required to issue a Form 1099-MISC to each representative who receives aggregate fees of $600 or more in a calendar year, with the total fee payments reflected in box 7 (non-employee compensation). However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has provided SSA with special procedures for those situations where SSA makes payments to representatives who are employees or partners in a firm. Specifically, if SSA learns that a representative is acting as an employee or partner in a firm (therefore, the fee payments are income to the firm) and the firm has provided SSA with the name, address, and employer identification number of the firm (via the Form SSA-1694 registration process for firms), then SSA should issue two Forms 1099-MISC. Pursuant to section 6041 of the IRC, SSA should issue a Form 1099-MISC to the firm with aggregate payments made to the firm's associates in box 7 (non-employee compensation). In addition, pursuant to section 6045(f) of the IRC, SSA should also issue a Form 1099-MISC to each of the individual representatives (i.e., employees or partners) reporting their individual aggregate payments in box 14 (gross proceeds paid to an attorney

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/representation/direct_payment_of_approval_fees_forms_1099.htm

Comments on the Social Security News blog:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19246708&postID=6558912512594480887&isPopup=true
_________________
Crescent City a/k/a Troll

Disability Law :: RE: 1099's

CrescentCity — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:09:30 GMT

Author: CrescentCity
Subject: I was right
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 08:09 pm (GMT 0)

I figured this 1099 reporting would be a problem and I was right. Each attorney in the office is getting a 1099 addressed to him/her personally for fees that were actually earned by the Law Firm that employs us.

As I recall, we told Social Security that we were connected with the firm when we registered. Is anyone else having this problem or did we just not get the memo?

Quote:

Nancy Webb in OISP is working with Systems to resolve that particular problem; hopefully, there are no others.

Is this the person who should be contacted to correct the 1099? Thanks for any help.
_________________
Crescent City a/k/a Troll

Disability Law :: RE: obesity

mwohlsen — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:19:43 GMT

Author: mwohlsen
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 05:19 pm (GMT 0)

UNFAVORABLE... ugh. No mention of obesity at step 3. Although it is not a Listing, I was under the impression that obesity could still be a severe impairment. The ALJ gave greater weight to the evidence in the record that my cl could walk atleast 2 hours in an 8-hour workday, despite what the MSS-P I submitted from his primary care physician said. At one point in the hearing a discussion took place about my cl's need to prop his leg frequently during the day to relieve swelling. The doctor's actually instructions were "as often as possible". My cl testified that he basically props his leg whenever he is sitting (which is most of the day). The VE testified that the jobs he said my cl could do (electrical accessories assembler, parking lot cashier, information clerk) he could NOT do if he had to prop his leg up at least waist high because it would cause him to be too far from his work station. So, I asked the Judge if we could send an interrogatory to his doctor to clarify how long my cl needed to prop his leg up during the day. Obviously I wanted the time to prop to be substantial as to eliminate those jobs and any other job. ALJ looked at me like I had two heads and said, "uh, NO".

Not sure where I'll go from here... just felt like sharing some of the aftermath/decision.
_________________
Melissa M. Wohlsen, Esquire
Pyfer Partners
128 N. Lime Street
P.O. Box 1597
Lancaster, PA 17608

Disability Law :: RE: Why is Summary Judgment Used?

Craig Jarvis — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:40:17 GMT

Author: Craig Jarvis
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 04:40 pm (GMT 0)

"Summary Judgment" is not really a good way to describe what is going on at the district court. It is a type of appellate review. The Court of Appeals has de novo review of the district court's decision, however that de novo review is bound by the jurisdiction of 205(g). That jurisdiction is to review the decisions of the Commissioner for substantial evidence.

Disability Law :: RE: 1099's

TCardillo — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:19:56 GMT

Author: TCardillo
Subject: 1099s that don't match actual fees received...
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:19 pm (GMT 0)

I checked my 1099 against the fees that I received last year (there was a fairly large discrepancy). The fees that were not on the 1099 were all fees that I received as paper checks, rather than via ACH direct deposit. Nancy Webb in OISP is working with Systems to resolve that particular problem; hopefully, there are no others.

Trisha Cardillo, ADR
Vice President of the
National Association of Disability Representatives
(770) 995-6009

Disability Law :: Why is Summary Judgment Used?

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:07:34 GMT

Author:
Subject: Why is Summary Judgment Used?
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:07 pm (GMT 0)

In an action for judicial review to the district court the procedure usually calls for each party to file motions for summary judgment and supporting briefs. I have never understood this. Judicial review is not like a trial court considering facts and then determining if one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judicial review in a social security case is simply to look at the case and see if the decision is supported by substantial evidence or there is an error of law.

The use of the summary judgment paradigm may have consequences if there is an appeal to the circuit court. Is the circuit court supposed to review the case de novo or does it give deference with the district court's decision to give summary judgment?

Disability Law :: RE: 1099's

Oldguy — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:36:35 GMT

Author: Oldguy
Subject: 1099's
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:36 pm (GMT 0)

I'm still waiting

Disability Law :: RE: 1099's

Bob R — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:19:48 GMT

Author: Bob R
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 07:19 pm (GMT 0)

Me too!

Disability Law :: Child SSI offset

macgirl1234 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:17:13 GMT

Author: macgirl1234
Subject: Child SSI offset
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 07:17 pm (GMT 0)

When doing SSI offsets in a childs case, are food and shelter supposed to be included in the calculations? I am getting two different answers on this and am hoping someone can clarify, or point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance.