SOCIAL SECURITY DISIBILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

—

INSOLENT HYPOCRISY

It seems incomprehensible that decisions of disability should be determined through an adversary system. No Jury. The judges are also the prosecutors who call their own paid witnesses. Everyone knows how the game is going to come out. In spite of that, the claimant is forced to play it.

Judges, in their conclusions, will make references to data that reasonable people would consider to be unimportant and to hearsay evidence that is not allowed in any legitimate court. Judges are known to quote records inaccurately in their decisions, with a lot of suppositions that no conscionable person would make.

Examining physicians usually make notes on a pad and later dictate their reports. Most often, they do not quote exactly the statements made to them by the claimant. After all, physicians are not court reporters; and this usually does not involve important data.

Judges seize upon this to note in their decision that the record contains many inconsistent statements by the claimant. Then preposterously conclude that the claimant was not considered to be a credible witness.

Many times, a judge will have a case for several months prior to the hearing and say that they have studied the case. Yet, never ask the claimant about these so‑called inconsistencies.

The number of medical specialists available for consultative examinations is limited by the low fee schedule that Social Security Disability Insurance will pay. In one case, where the Appeals Council had vacated the first decision of denial and remanded the case to a second judge for further proceedings, this second judge gave instructions to the Disability Insurance Unit of that state that three different neurologists and ten different psychologists were not to be used. These were medical specialists that might give evidence to counteract the previous decision of denial. The remainder of the specialists available were those known to give reports that coincide with the Office of Hearings and Appeals’ desire to deny benefits to claimants. These were specialists with questionable ethics and conflicts of interest, since most (80% to 90%) of their professional income is from the Office of Hearings and Appeals. At the hearing and in the decision of denial, the judge had the audacity to say, “The undersigned had absolutely no control over who [the claimant] would be sent to for examination.”

Ethical medical specialists turn down cases paid for the Office of Hearings and Appeals because these judges do not want a complete battery of tests done that would determine any disability of the claimant. These judges instead specify that only certain tests should be performed. Tests that will show only what the judge wants in order to deny a claim.

There are those medical specialists, used for the first time, that will not compromise their integrity; and they do tests that they are not paid for. They are forever boycotted by the Office of Hearings and Appeals. The only way these medical specialists are available is for the claimant to seek them out and pay for the tests and testimony themselves. When this is done, these medical specialists do tests, write reports, testify at the hearing and are subject to cross examination.

The Office of Hearings and Appeals’ psychologist does only the tests requested by the judge, then writes a report that is forwarded to the Office of Hearings and Appeals. This Office of Hearings and Appeals’ psychologist is not at the hearing to testify or be cross examined. Other psychologists chosen by the judge, who have never given tests or examined the claimant in any manner, testify as to what great reports the Office of Hearings and Appeals’ psychologist makes. The Office of Hearings and Appeals’ psychologist lies and the judge’s psychologists swear to it.

The marriage between law and psychology is a homosexual marriage, and how these arrogant judges are appointed is political homosexuality.

In the evidence of one case, was a record of paramedics indicating that they had administered oxygen to bring the unconscious claimant out of the after effects of a seizure. Also, an all night sleep test had been performed, in which the claimant had a seizure that lasted six minutes; and during which time, the heart had stopped for twenty‑five seconds (death occurs at thirty seconds). Subsequently, a permanent pacemaker was inserted. The Office of Hearings and Appeals’ psychologist testified, “The record does not contain objective evidence of a seizure disorder.” The judge repeated this statement in the decision of denial. The Office of Hearings and Appeals’ psychologist also stated that the claimant had researched epilepsy and had intentionally produced and feigned physical disorder. Now, if the claimant could intentionally induce a seizure making the heart stop for twenty‑five seconds, imagine what could be done with a little more research and practice. The claimant would be in another world.

In this case, the Appeals Council concluded that the claimant did have a severe impairment, vacated the second decision of denial and remanded the case to a third judge for further proceedings. The third judge found the claimant disabled, but stated in the decision that there was no evidence of a seizure disorder.

“CONSULTATIVE EXAMINATIONS (CEs) HAVE LIMITATIONS BECAUSE THE SEVERITY OF SEIZURE DISORDERS IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO TYPE, FREQUENCY, DURATION AND SEQUELAE. THESE THINGS CANNOT BE READILY DETERMINED BY A CE. THEREFORE, ALL EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE FROM TREATING PHYSICIANS AND LAY SOURCES.” SSA Program Circular # 85‑OD Appendix E

“SOME INDIVIDUALS WITH CLEARLY CONFIRMED DIAGNOSIS OF EPILEPSY HAVE NORMAL EEGs.” Epilepsy and Federal Disability Benefits

“IN SOME CASES, THE SEIZURES ARE UNDER REASONABLE CONTROL BUT THE MEDICATION SIDE EFFECTS ARE DISABLING.” The University of Minnesota

“IN GRAND MAL (TONIC CLONIC) EPILEPSY, AN EEG IS USUALLY LESS INFORMATIVE.” The Physicians Drug Manual, 1981 Doubleday

“...THE SEIZURE ACTIVITY IS LOCATED SO DEEP IN THE BRAIN THAT SURFACE ELECTRODES DO NOT PICK IT UP.” National Spokesman, October 1986

SPRAGUE VERSUS BOWEN, 812 F 2^nd 1226, 1230 9^th Cir 1987

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS — INSOLENT HYPOCRISY by Robert A. Kroboth www.citizengadfly.com

Please print and distribute copies of this publication and put this link on your web site.