Case Number : 17-14992 Date Filed : 08/27/2019

Tags : Bipolar Disorder, Mental Disabilities, Social Security Disability, SSDI, Disability Claim, Disability Appeal, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Alabama, Florida, Georgia

Key Takeaways : Bipolar disorder recognized as a mental disability for purpose of disability benefits based on severity; significant impairments with the ability to interact with others can impede and individuals ability to work; significant weight should be given to medical professionals treating SSDI applicants unless proof is shown otherwise.

Relevant Links : Schink v. Commissioner of Social Security

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case in which an applicant for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) had his application denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA). His application was then denied on Reconsideration of his application. The applicant's appeal before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was also denied. The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ’s decision and the applicant appealed the decision to the District Court, which affirmed the Appeals Council’s decision.

From NOSSCR:

June 19 House Hearing on "Encouraging Work" in the SSDI Program

On Wednesday, June 19, at 10 :00 a.m., the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee will hold a hearing on "Encouraging Work Through the Social Security Disability Insurance Program."  The hearing will take place in room B-318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.  In the Hearing Advisory, Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) stated:  "It's just plain wrong that those receiving disability benefits who want to work are sentenced to a lifetime of near poverty with no way out.  Social Security's return-to-work efforts are simply failing do their job of helping our fellow citizens find work.  We must find ways to help these Americans trade in their disability check for a paycheck that can provide a better life."

I am very grateful to NOSSCR and all of the attendees at my presentation at the Fall 2018 NOSSCR conference.

The question presented in the brief of the Petitioner, Michael J. Biestek, is

Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of “other work,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant’s request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.

The Supreme Court docket and links to the briefs in the Biestek case are available at the ScotusBlog.

I write on behalf of NOSSCR and its more than 3, 000 members with serious concern s regarding SSA’s program uniformity rules (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 90987 on December 16, 2016) and