03-23-2013, 12:43 AM
cbelt3 wrote:
Davester- the doctor is not the decider. That's the job of "the lady that sits in the Social Security office". The article did not explain the process. There is a federal level decision . And then lawyers , etc. it's a real pita.
That's not really true either. The way it works is that a doctor makes a determination that someone is unfit for work. That person then applies for SSI with that as the basis. If the SS office denies the claim for whatever reason (and you are correct that in at least some jurisdictions they deny every claim as a matter of policy (shockingly, this happened to my disabled son who has a significant and indisputable disability). Then an appeal is made that goes before a judge working for social security. The doctor is the one who makes the primary determination and generally his/her findings can't be challenged. The "lady" you speak of may reject the claim based on policy, but most claims with any kind of validity go to appeal. My understanding is that during the appeal, the judge pretty much has to take medical findings at face value. This is a problem if the doctors writing up those findings don't have firm requirements that they have to meet in order to make a determination of "unfit to work".
It galls me to sit with my son in the SSI office and see so many people who seem very fit and capable collecting their money. I have also known people who managed to get on the disability rolls who knew that they were scamming the government. I know that some valid disabilities are difficult to spot, but it seems unlikely that so many seemingly well-abled people are really unfit to work.
So where is the solution? My son is enrolled in a voluntary program to train him and find him employment based on his strengths and abilities. I think that attendance and progress at similar programs should be mandatory for anyone expecting to collect an SSI check.