Thank you to the Southwest Louisiana Multiple Sclerosis Foundation for the invitation and opportunity to be a guest speaker at today’s Educational MS Symposium at the River Oaks Event Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.
A copy of my power point presentation regarding “Social Security Disability Benefits” is available for download (26 page document in PDF format).
Because of a recent successful Federal Court appeal by Louisiana Social Security disability attorney Matthew D. Lane, Jr., an Administrate Law Judge’s (ALJ) unfavorable decision was reversed and remanded.
In 2011, client applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income based on prior cervical spine trauma, osteophytes of the cervical spine, chronic headaches, and bilateral hand numbness and weakness. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied his claim in 2012, and the Appeals Council did not grant review.
In 2013, attorney Matthew Lane filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on client’s behalf seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
In 2015, the Court issued a Judgment reversing the ALJ’s decision. The Court found that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the claimant’s treating source medical opinion under Myers v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 617 (5th Cir. 2001) because it did not analyze the six factors for evaluation of medical opinions in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (length of treatment, frequency of examination, nature and extent of relationship, support provided by other evidence, consistency of opinion with record, and specialization).
The Court further found that the ALJ did not comply with regulations requiring evaluation of the side effect of claimant’s medications, which included Methadone, Darvocet, Lortab, Neurontin, and Flexeril, on the ability to function despite an opinion from claimant’s treating doctor that he experienced drowsiness, dizziness, and delayed reaction time.
As a result of the successful Federal Court appeal, the client will have another opportunity to prove he was disabled prior to his date last insured (DLI) in 2011. And if successful, the client will be eligible to receive disability insurance benefits and Medicare rather than being restricted to receipt of supplemental security income and Medicaid.
Learn more about representation in the Federal Court appeal process or complete a claim evaluation if you need assistance appealing an unfavorable ALJ decision.
Because of a recent successful Federal Court appeal by Louisiana Social Security disability attorney Matthew D. Lane, Jr., an Administrate Law Judge’s (ALJ) unfavorable decision was reversed. Consequently, the client has the opportunity for a new hearing and retains the original alleged disability onset date.
Retention of the original alleged disability onset date is significant because if the client can prove disability at a new hearing, the client can potentially recover past-due disability benefits from that date. In contrast, had the client re-applied after receiving the unfavorable ALJ decision and not appealed, the client’s disability onset date typically would be the day following the unfavorable ALJ decision. Thus, the client could not be found disabled for the period of time covered by the unfavorable ALJ decision and past-due benefits for that period of time would not be recoverable.
Here, the client became disabled in 2008. In 2011, the client applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income based on cervical disc disease and hypertension. In 2012, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision, and the Appeals Council subsequently denied review.
In 2013, attorney Matthew D. Lane, Jr., filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on client’s behalf seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
In 2015, the Court issued a Judgment reversing the ALJ’s decision and provided three reasons for its decision.
First, based on MRI evidence demonstrating impingement of the spinal cord and evidence of significant problems in client’s daily functioning, the Court found that the ALJ did not properly evaluate whether client’s condition met or medically equaled a listed impairment at step three of the sequential evaluation process.
Second, the Court found that the ALJ did not properly evaluate treating source medical opinion evidence regarding client’s functional limitations under controlling law, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and Social Security Ruling 96-2p.
Finally, the Court found that the ALJ’s assessment of client’s residual functional capacity (RFC) was not supported by substantial evidence.