UNITED STATES AGREES WITHOUT ARGUMENT THAT SSA DENIAL OF DISABILITY BENEFITS WAS WRONG

We are pleased to announce another favorable decision received this week in federal court overruling a Social Security Administration Judge’s denial of disability benefits to a young man.

In this case the claimant was a young man disabled due to severe heart disease, tremors and associated depression. He had previously worked in sales positions but due to his severe disabilities, was no longer able to perform his jobs and filed for social security disability more than three years ago.

The SSA Judge found that due to his severe impairments, the young man would not be able to perform in any work involving managerial or administrative decision making, analysis, or supervision. However, despite these severe limitations the SSA Judge found that the young man could still work such jobs as a sales representative, or telephone solicitor. The SSA Judge then denied disability benefits to this young man for that reason.

We appealed this denial to the federal courts. On appeal we argued that the decision by the SSA Judge made no sense in law or fact. We argued that the SSA Judge had already found that this young man’s severe impairments would prohibit him from performing any jobs involving managerial or administrative decision making, analysis or supervision. At the same time, and in direct conflict, we then showed that the other jobs the SSA Judge found that this young man could perform (sales representative, telephone solicitor) were expressly defined by the United States itself to specifically require such abilities as managerial and administrative decision making, analysis and supervision. As such, the SSA Judge’s decision was nonsensical and should be thrown out.

The United States Attorney’s office, upon receipt of our brief on appeal, chose not to argue or defend the SSA. Instead the United States fully agreed with our position on appeal without offering any argument and requested the Federal Court itself to overrule the SSA Judge’s decision and return this claim to the SSA for further proceedings. The Federal Court agreed and within 24 hours issued a Order overruling the SSA Judge’s decision denying this young man benefits, and remanded this case to the SSA to re-hear this claim.

JAMES R. LINEHAN CITED IN CALL FOR CONGRESSIONAL REFORM OF US DOL OWCP

Lisa Troshinsky with cyberFEDS®Washington Bureau LRP Publications has just released and published an investigatory article for national circulation noting the extreme difficulties, the lack of government oversight and the need for reform of the US Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The OWCP is a federal agency that oversees several million federal employees and their injury compensation claims that amount to more than $3 billion dollars per year in federal funds.

The article specifically refers to the Law Office of James R. Linehan and his prior testimony before the US Congress calling for immediate Congressional reform of the US DOL OWCP; including judicial review and oversight. The article states in part:

“James Linehan, [an] attorney versed in OWCP issues, said OWCP claimants "are the only group of American citizens denied by federal law any right to court access, court review, or congressional review. Any litigation has to be done administratively."
There is no incentive, legally or economically, for the OWCP to act in the best interest of the federal employee, he said.
“A 2000 report by the Committee on Government Reform, in which Linehan was quoted, said Congress "should consider establishing an independent board, such as the board overseeing ongoing reforms at the Internal Revenue Service, to review, recommend, and oversee reforms at the OWCP."
The board should also consider and recommend to Congress "whether appeals by federal workers under the OWCP should be extended to include the federal court system," the committee said.”
“Because many of these cases fall through the cracks, medical doctors often do not want to take them for fear of not getting paid, the committee report said.
The OWCP must pre-approve and authorize medical treatment, but it is under no timeline requiring it to issue such approval and authorization, Linehan wrote in the report. Because of this, "physicians are highly reluctant to accept the cases because they are aware that they may not be paid for months, years, or at all by the OWCP."”
An Environmental Protection Agency workers' compensation coordinator, who requested anonymity, echoed this sentiment.
"Claimants' own physicians will not accept them as workers' compensation patients because getting paid can be a real challenge," she said. "We had an employee with an eye injury a year and a half ago, the bill was under $100, and the doctor still hasn't gotten paid. Employees end up filing under their regular insurance or have to go to find another doctor."
Congress has recommended formal reforms of the workers' comp process.

APPEALS BOARD OVERRULES DENIAL OF FEDERAL COMPENSATION BENEFITS

In a claim that has taken almost three years, I am also pleased to announce a victory for an injured worker in his claim for federal workers’ compensation benefits.
Here, the worker was injured in 2002 when he lifted a garage door to get to his government issued vehicle. The accident was not witnessed and the injured employee continued to work for several days thereafter until his pain grew too intense and he sought medical treatment.
The federal government denied the federal workers’ compensation claim by arguing that the employee did not need to be checking on his vehicle during work hours and that the employee delayed obtaining medical treatment.
Upon appeal to the Employees Compensation Appeals Board we argued that the employee was entitled to his workers compensation benefits as he was injured in the performance of duty.
The Board agreed.
The Board found that an employee going to or coming from work is covered for compensation while on the employer’s premises. The “premises” may include all “property” of the employer even if the employer does not have ownership and control of the place where the injury occurred. Here, the federal employee was on federal property when he was injured. Furthermore the injury occurred during work hours. And although the employee had an office job, the act of the employee in going to his company vehicle to check on its condition was a reasonable expectation and in the line of work. There was no evidence offered by the government that this employee or any other was barred from checking on their federal vehicles, thus he was where he could have been reasonably expected to be in connection with his job. The decision of denial was reversed and federal workers’ compensation benefits granted.

FEDERAL COURT OVERTURNS SOCIAL SECURITY DENIAL

Once again, I am pleased to announce another victory for a claimant in his application for social security disability benefits.
This claimant was a young man unable to return to work due to ongoing back problems, sleep disorder and other illnesses.
The Social Security Administration originally found that despite his physical problems the claimant would be able to perform other jobs and was not disabled.
The Social Security Administration stated that the claimant could do such jobs as a machine operator, a toll collector or an inspector.
Upon appeal to the federal court we argued that the claimant had only a limited education with limited ability to do math, read or write and would be unable perform the jobs that Social Security Administration described.
The federal court agreed with our arguments.
The federal court noted that the Social Security Administration mis-identified the jobs as described. The federal court found that some of the jobs described by the Social Security Administration may not even exist and thus could not be found to be reliable evidence.
The federal court also found that it was in error for the Social Security Administration to hold that the claimant could return to other jobs such as a toll collector when the claimant was unable to add and subtract simple numbers.
For these and other reasons, the federal court ruled that the Social Security Administration's denial of benefits in this case, must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the evidence in record. The claim has now been returned to the Social Security Administration for a re-hearing.