Maryland Injury and Disability Law : Washington DC Metro Injury & Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Greenberg & Bederman : Accidents, Falls, Medical Malpractice : Maryland, DC, Virginia

Things You Should Know About Social Security Disability Insurance

As personal injury lawyers, we can tell you from firsthand experience that bad things can happen to perfectly innocent people. We help people who have been severely injured due to no fault of their own on a daily basis. We help them deal with insurance companies. We help them deal with bill collectors. We help them deal with the legal process. And we do this simply because if we don’t, their chances of receiving fair treatment are very much diminished.

Our government came to a similar realization. There are simply too many variables in human life for all of our citizens to go without some sort of basic protection in the event that things go wrong. People get sick or injured on a daily basis, and they get sick or injured in such a way that keeps them from working or otherwise supporting themselves. To keep these injury victims from falling through the cracks, our government established the Social Security Administration.

Most people know that Social Security is a government backed program that provides supplemental income to all Americans once they get to retirement age. They are less aware that Social Security provides coverage to people of all ages who suffer disabling injuries and are as such are unable to provide for themselves. Many people are also unaware that these benefits can also extend to their immediate families.

If you find yourself unable to work for a year or more due to a medical disability, you may be eligible to receive Social Security Disability payments. These benefits are paid up until the point where you are able to work again (if that is possible.) You can apply for SSDI benefits is if your injury is permanent and has lasted for at least one year.

In order to qualify, you  have to meet the Social Security Administration’s definition of “disabled.” In broad terms, what this means is the following:

• You have an injury or illness that prevents you from doing the work that you used to do. In other words, if you used to have a job that required heavy physical labor and you severely injure yourself in a car accident, it is unlikely that you will be able to continue to work at your same job.
•  You can’t do other work because of your condition. Making a career change happens to many people at some point in their lives, but with severe injuries or debilitating illnesses a career switch simply isn’t an option. If you have an injury where simply sitting upright causes you pain, there aren’t many employment positions available.
•  Your disability is expected to last at least a year or to result in your death. It is important to realize that SSDI is generally for people who have been severely injured or are severely ill. Injuries that result in permanent impairment or injuries that will take extensive and lengthy recovery periods are generally the types that are considered for SSDI benefits.

If your condition meets these general criteria, then it falls to the Social Security Administration to determine whether or not you are actually disabled. They do this by asking five questions.

1.       Are you currently working? The idea here is that you can’t really be considered disabled if you are holding down a job and earning more than $1000 a month.  If you are currently working and making more than that, then as far as the SSA is concerned, you aren’t disabled.

2.       Is your condition Severe? In other words, does your condition directly affect your ability to work? Can you not work specifically because of your injury or illness?

3.       Is your condition on the list of disabling conditions? The Social Security Administration has a list of conditions which will automatically qualify you for SSDI. You can find that list here. If your condition is not on the automatically disabling list, that doesn’t mean you should give up. It just means that they take a longer time considering whether or not you will qualify.

4.       Can you go back to your old job or go back to similar work? If you get into a car accident, but are still able to do the job that you had before you were injured, then you will not qualify for SSDI. This has become more and more common in recent years, as a great deal of the work is more automated and less based on manual labor.

5.       Can you do any other type of work? The key here is that they want disabled to mean “severely disabled.” If your injury has you completely bed-ridden or has left you with brain injuries, then there is a high amount of probability that you would not be able to transfer your skills over to any other job, or really do any other job for that matter.

These are the basic qualifications for Social Security Disability benefits, but what has not been mentioned so far is that the process for applying for these benefits can be very long and quite complicated. There are rejections and appeals, many of which are decided by a presiding administrative law judge. This is not like waiting in line at the DMV to get a driver’s license. It’s more complicated than that.

This is why having experienced legal representation to assist you with your application is so important. It could be the difference between being provided with crucially needed income for you and your family and being left with nothing at all. With serious injuries, or a questionable disability problem, such as mental illness, the stakes are too high to attempt to do without legal counsel.

Greenberg and Bederman is a D.C. based law firm that helpsinjury victims get through the injury process, and that includes helping them with the applications forSocial Security Disability benefits. We serve clients in Silver Spring, Maryland and Baltimore, and have helped hundreds of people all over Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC. If you or a loved one needs assistance in getting through the SSDI process, contact our social security lawyer Audrey Faust, for a free social security legal consultation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Women in Indianapolis Latest to File Yaz Lawsuits

According to the Star Press, over fifty women have filed yaz lawsuits against the Bayer Corporation due to injuries that these women received due to the use of Bayer’s line of birth control pills.

According to the British Medical Journal Study of the women who take Yaz, Yasmin, or Oscella, 6% will experience dangerous adverse reactions ranging from blood clots, to DVT, to Gallbladder injury. Other birth control products have adverse reactions in about 1 % of patients who take birth control pills.

Bear in mind, we certainly don’t think that it’s “normal” for birth control pills to be dangerous to women. But considering that Bayer had no problem with producing, releasing and aggressively marketing a pill with an ingredient that they knew to be more dangerous than other forms of oral contraceptives, we have to assume that they think a five percent casualty rate for their products is “normal.”

The ingredient in question is a synthetic variation of one of the two main ingredients found in almost every birth control pill on the market. Most pills contain a combination of progesterone and estrogen, which essentially fools the female body into thinking that it is already pregnant. In order to separate themselves from the pack, Bayer decided to use a synthetically produced variation of progesterone called drospirenone. With this ingredient firmly in place, Bayer began to trumpet the additional peripheral benefits of what their line of pills could supposedly do. Aside from helping to prevent pregnancy, Bayer claimed that Yaz and Yasmin both helped to prevent serious forms of acne and Pre Menstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD.) They combined these claims with an expensive and flashy advertising campaign that was aimed at younger women. After all, what young woman wouldn’t want to avoid acne? What young woman wouldn’t wantto avoid the emotional instability that often comes with menstruation?

 

As predicted, Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella became Bayer’s top selling products. And this is exactly why the casualty rate is so high. It turns out that drospirenone does other things besides acne and PMDD prevention. It also dramatically raises the potassium levels in the bloodstreams of the women who use it. This condition (called hyperkalimia) does not lead to positive health benefits. High potassium levels in the bloodstream can and do lead to blood clots in the arteries or veins in the legs, which is called deep vein thrombosis. These clots then break apart and the pieces start to travel through the bloodstream, where they then block the regular flow of blood. This leads to pulmonary embolisms, strokes and heart attacks. This is not to mention gall bladder disease, which has also been linked to Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella.

As of right now, Bayer’s public defense has been presented in two ways. The first is to say that since they have a warning label on the box, and since they mentioned the possible side effects on both the warning labels and the commercials, then it couldn’t possibly be their fault if nobody read it. The second public defense is to release statements that say things like, “When taken properly, Yaz or Yasmin are effective and safe birth control pills,” which implies that it is somehow the fault of the person who was taking the drug rather than the drug manufacturers themselves.

We find a great deal wrong with both of these methods of defense. In the first place, considering that the only way you can get birth control pills in this country is through a prescription from a doctor, most patients are already assuming that the pills are safe. If your doctor prescribes you a medication, wouldn’t you assume without thinking about it that it won’t be harmful to your health? With that being the case, we have to make the assumption that Bayer did not tell the medical community everything that it needed to know.

Secondly, how can you possibly blame the patient for any illnesses or adverse medical conditions that develop? Birth control pills are relatively easy to deal with. It’s one pill a day. We find it hard to believe that any of the women who have been taking these pills have somehow stumbled across a magic formula to make an otherwise benign working birth control pill deadly.

If Bayer had come right out and said “This pill contains an ingredient that increases the likelihood of deep vein thrombosis, strokes, heart attacks, pulmonary embolisms and gall bladder disease,” then it could be said that their bases were covered. But they did not. They did not say such things on the labeling, they did not say such things in their multi-million dollar advertising campaign, and they certainly aren’t admitting it now that the casualty numbers are starting to come in.

The women filing the yaz lawsuit in Indianapolis are only a fraction of the number of women all over the world who have suffered real and provable damage from the use of these birth control pills. Women who, in good faith, took birth control pills that were dangerous to their health, and these women were hospitalized with painful or even fatal injuries.

Here in the Washington, D.C. area, Greenberg and Bederman has been leading the way in both informing women of the dangers of Bayer’s line of birth control pills and providing legal assistance for women who have been harmed by using these pills. We are currently representing several women who have been injured and hospitalized due to Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella.

If you or a loved one has been similarly injured, contact Greenberg and Bederman for a free yaz legal consultation today.

To learn more about our yaz lawyer, Andy Bederman, please read about Andy Bederman, or watch his yaz video onYoutube.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

RE: Docket Number SSA-2007-0044

Upon review of the proposed regulations for hearings and appeals, we have several concerns. While we applaud SSA’s desire to expedite the agency’s processing times, we are fearful that the steps implemented in order to accelerate the process will come at the sacrifice of fair and accurate decision making.

1) The proposed changes to the regulations transform the program from an informal, non- adversarial one into a complex, legalistic, formal one. This transformation comes with many pitfalls along the way. For example, there are more time limitations in the process. Failure to comply with the strict time limitations can result in dismissal. The unrepresented claimant is especially vulnerable.

The new requirement that the request for hearing include a statement that lists the "medically determinable impairments" is unduly restrictive. Does this limit the impairments that can be considered by the ALJ? Claimants should not be limited only to those impairments listed at the time of their appeal.

The new proposal eliminates the criteria in the current regulations which direct when the ALJ is required to change the time/and or place of hearing. It also severely limits the good cause factors for rescheduling and gives nearly total discretion to the ALJ. Without these guidelines, there will be cases dismissed inappropriately and many claimants will have little, if any, recourse.



2) New restrictions on the submission of evidence violate the Social Security Act and are fundamentally unfair.

The proposal requires that all evidence must be filed five (5) business days before the hearing date or it is considered "late" and is subject to new rules. Similar proposals were advanced years ago but were abandoned for a variety of reasons. SSA itself previously discarded such a proposal because it appeared to close the record in contravention of the statute. Congress reviewed the issue and concluded that limitations on the introduction of evidence overlook the reality that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain evidence in a timely fashion, and that, in some instances these limitations may conflict with the statute.

In addition, the proposed changes conflict with the ALJ’s obligation to fully and fairly develop the record. It is well established in case law that an ALJ has a duty to develop the record. This duty is heightened in cases where the claimant is unrepresented. This duty would be negated by the time limits for submitting evidence. These changes will result in ALJs making decisions based upon an incomplete record.


While we support the submission of evidence as early in the process as possible, to the extent that important and relevant evidence becomes available at a later point in the process, the claimant should not be precluded from submitting it, since this is not an adversarial process but a "truth-seeking" one. There are many practical reasons why the record should not be closed before the hearing. For example, in many instances, claimants seek representation after the hearing has been scheduled. In many of these cases, there is simply insufficient time to obtain the records. Even if the full 75 days notice is available, that is not always sufficient. Medical providers are frequently uncooperative in providing the records in an expeditious fashion. Some ALJs refuse to issue subpoenas and even in cases where the ALJ agrees to issue the subpoena, they do not have the power to enforce same.

Finally, this new proposal would precipitate more court filings. Under 42 U.S.C. §405(g) a federal court may remand a case and require SSA to consider additional evidence if (1) it is new and material; and (2) there is good cause for the failure to submit it earlier. The proposed requirement for submission of evidence is more restrictive than the Act, and would create conflict. Claimants will be forced to file appeals to federal courts in order to have SSA consider evidence that was improperly excluded. The district court judge will be asked to decide whether the ALJ or Review Board was wrong to refuse to consider evidence. As a result, the new time limits will create unnecessary litigation and will cause an increase in federal court filings.

3) The proposal regarding administrative review significantly limits the claimant’s right to review erroneous ALJ decisions.

The proposed change is inconsistent with the Social Security Act and raises some troublesome legal issues. For example, what if the court reverses and specifically states in its remand order that the agency consider new evidence? Does the proposed change attempt to limit the court’s power by restricting the scope of review it can order for remand proceedings?

Moreover, this proposal is ambiguous and can be interpreted as establishing time limited benefits. On remand, the ALJ would not be allowed to consider an increase in severity of the original impairment or the development of a new impairment. At best, the proposal means that a claimant, on remand, will be limited to establishing disability no later that the date of the first ALJ decision. But, at worst, the proposal could be interpreted to mean that the claimant could be found disabled for a period, ending no later than the date of the original ALJ decision. Under either scenario, the claimant would be forced to file a new application for any change in his/her condition that occurs after the date of the original ALJ decision. Both interpretations will have an adverse impact on claimants and the fallout from this includes, inter alia, loss of access to health care benefits and loss of protection from the medical improvement standard.


4) Forcing claimants to file multiple applications is not fair or efficient. By closing the record to new evidence and limiting the period that can be considered to determine eligibility, claimants would be forced to file multiple applications. This, in turn, raises other concerns. Claimants may jeopardize eligibility by reapplying. There are consequences to reapplying in lieu of appealing. Congress recognized this years ago. One can’t help but wonder why SSA would force a claimant to file an additional application when the claim for disability could be resolved by making a decision based upon a complete record.

5) The new restrictions on re-opening prior applications are unfair. Under current law, reopening for good cause may occur within two years (SSI) or four years (Title II) on the initial determination if there is "new and material evidence". Reopening is discretionary and cannot be required but it can be used to correct unjust determinations. The proposed regulations eliminate ALJ discretion to reopen a previous decision where new and material evidence demonstrates that the claimant was disabled at an earlier time. The rationale for this is that claimants should not be able to circumvent the new time limits for submitting evidence after the record is closed. This proposal is unfair for claimants in many situations. It is especially unfair for claimants who were unrepresented and whose cases were poorly developed. It is also particularly unfair for mentally challenged claimants whose limitations prevent or interfere with their ability to cooperate with the development. There are many instances in which this proposal could lead to an injustice which could not be corrected. In cases where insured status has expired, the individual could be left without recourse.

6) The proposed standard of review before the Review Board is too vague. The proposal includes a new "harmless error" rule and states that the Review Board will only act on "significant errors of law". There is no further clarification.

The above comments touch upon some of our concerns. Again, we are grateful that SSA is looking for solutions which will expedite the administrative process. While a more expeditious process is desired, the principles of fairness and justice cannot be compromised. We implore you to reconsider these proposals and work toward creating a new proposal that will accelerate the process without sacrificing due process and fundamental fairness.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

VTY,

To learn more about social security disability issues, please visit social security disability law.  To learn more about our social security disability lawyers, please click on social security disability lawyers maryland, and read our firm bios on DOry Sutker or Suja Varghese.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link