Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: There is some bullshit on 60 minutes right now... [View all]hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)67. It's a complex issue
At the first 2 levels which are adjudicated at DDS, the allowance rates are fairly low.
At the third level of appeal, before an ALJ at the OHA way more are allowed.
Most of what I would consider non deserving people are allowed by the ALJ.
Most DDS's have an internal QA component that essentially plays the devils advocate on iffy cases. Then a certain
percentage of those cases are sent to DQB the federal QA unit. So at the first two levels the case gets intense scrutiny.
At the hearing level the law judge does not have that level of scrutiny. The appeals council reviews some of those decisions but mostly denials so if a law judge allows a case his work will be reviewed less than if he denys . So ALJ's can pretty much allow cases the DDS never could. QA would kick them back if DDS did. ALJ has staff to get the info to support his decision, where the examiner at DDS has to pretty much convince the staff to go his way.
However at the DDS level besides being charged with accuracy as determined by your QA error rate, you are also pushed to produce cases at low mean processing time. Allowing an iffy case requires you to QA proof your decision way more than a denial because you have to often try over and over to get the claimants to give you the information you need, especially the vocational information which can be key. Also you have to wait months and often request info from doctors over and over until they give you the key info you know you need to allow that person. Some people will just look at the case on the surface and on the surface it is a denial. But to dig to allow drives up your mean processing time. Slows your production. Drives up your caseload.
So it's good that there are multiple levels of appeal even though some undeserving slip thru.
ay
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Lawyers are whores. And they are not supposed to be concerned about whether or not their clients
kestrel91316
Oct 2013
#6
I should have qualified that. But I didn't see a way to do it succinctly and without diverting
kestrel91316
Oct 2013
#41
I've also known folks who collect disability for what could be considered "life style choices"
mountain grammy
Oct 2013
#55
To be honest, I don't think I knew anyone who started on disability in the 90's.
mountain grammy
Oct 2013
#74
The fact is lawyers don't know in advance which ALJ will hear their clients' cases
duffyduff
Oct 2013
#48
Did you watch the WHOLE segment... the part about taxpayers pay over a BILLION dollars to lawyers
Tx4obama
Oct 2013
#15
The point of the segment is DOJ is going after lawyers and doctors that are scaming the system
Tx4obama
Oct 2013
#19
Wow. "Fat people get disability to retire early" I can't believe I read this on DU.
anneboleyn
Oct 2013
#42
I was awarded (weird term?) disability on my 1st try, no lawyer, just hospital records
NightWatcher
Oct 2013
#26
I am not disabled or anything but I agree this SHOULD be the story many unenlightened need to see
lunasun
Oct 2013
#46
It's impossible to design a program like this that doesn't have at least some minimal level of
totodeinhere
Oct 2013
#44
I don't agree that it's rampant. An assertion like that plays right into the hands of
totodeinhere
Oct 2013
#63