Apparently there does indeed remain in the federal court system some remnant of common sense.

 

In a report issued today a US Federal Court agreed with my arguments for my client that the SSA, for all practicality, had no idea of what it was doing in denying disability benefits to this disabled person.  Once again, the Federal Court has on this same case has recommended that a SSA Administrative Law Judge's decision to deny disability benefits be ovveruled.

 

This social security disability case has been ongoing a tragic comedy of errors and missteps by the SSA bureacracy for over seven years.

 

The claimant first filed for disability in 2001.  He was of middle age, with limited job experience and only an 8th grade school education. Due to his severe impairments to his back and neck, the claimant was unable to bend, stoop, or use his left arm. 

After more than two years, in 2003 the Social Security Administration held a hearing in which the Social Security judge approved and found the claimant as disabled but only through April 2002.  The judge provided no reason why the claimant was no longer disabled after April 2002.

We appealed this decision to the US federal court.  A year later in 2003 the federal court overruled and reversed the judge's decision and sent the case back to Social Security to determine the claimant's disability after 2002.

The case was returned to the Social Security Administration.  In the meantime, two years later in 2005 the SSA issued a formal notice finding that the claimant was indeed fully disabled since 2001 and entitled to back pay as well as future monthly disability payments.  The SSA began to pay disability benefits to the claimant.  As a direct result, the claimant withdrew any further requests for appeal on his claim as it was now fully approved and paying benefits.

However, in 2005 the SSA proceeded to go ahead with another administrative hearing within SSA judge to determine if the claimant was disabled since 2001 and entitled to disability benefits.  Other than the Social Security judge herself no one was present at this hearing.  The SSA judge after having a hearing with herself then issued a decision finding that the claimant was not disabled and not entitled to benefits.

Subsequently, a year later, the SSA notified the claimant that his benefits should have ended in 2002 and that there was an overpayment to him due to his working since 2002.  (The claimant had not been employed or working since 2000.)  The SSA demanded that the claimant repay all disability benefits paid to him since 2001.

Five days later the very same SSA issued a notice to the claimant stating that no overpayment had occurred and that he did not owe the SSA any money.

In the meantime, in 2007, a year later the very same SSA then issued a notice upholding the 2005 Social Security judge decision where she found by herself at her own hearing that the claimant was not disabled and not entitled to disability benefits.

We then proceeded to federal court for a second time to appeal these decisions of the SSA. 

On federal court appeal, the SSA actually attempted to argue that it was entirely the fault of the claimant himself for the termination of his disability benefits.  The SSA actually attempted to argue that the claimant should not have relied upon the SSA's own formal notices to him that his claim was fully approved and that he was disabled and entitled to benefits.  The SSA argued that the claimant's reliance upon the SSA's notice of approval benefits was the claimant's fault and the claimant should have appeared to contest the approval of his benefits at the 2005 hearing that the Social Security judge held with herself.

We strongly argued against the SSA's nonsensical arguments.  We strongly argued that but for the Social Security Administration's own notices to the claimant and their bungling bureaucracy this entire convoluted process could have been avoided.  We strongly argued that the claimant himself should not be deemed at fault and to blame for the SSA's own errors.

The US federal court now for the second time has once again agreed with our arguments in this case.  The federal court in response to the SSA's attempt to blame the claimant for the bungling and frustration in this case stated that"[a]ny such frustration in the present case comes as a result of the [SSA] commissioners left hand not knowing what the right is doing.  " The federal court further dismissed the SSA's attempt to blame the claimant by placing the blame on the Commissioner himself stating that the SSA "Commissioner must exercise greater care and not paying years of benefits contrary to his own appellate decision" should he wish to assert blame on the claimant.

The federal court has recommended that once again this case be returned to the SSA for another hearing to determine the status of disability and the entitlements due to the claimant.  Hopefully, after seven years of bureaucracy andtwo federal court appeals overruling two Social Security Administration judges, the third Social Security Administrative Judge to review this case will bear some semblance of common sense in review of this claim.