Thoughts on a Hearing

Over the many years in which I have handled social security cases, they all seem to have a common theme. I have never had so large of a practice that I could not personally handle each and every one of my cases.

If the claim is turned down on the initial application and than on reconsideration. A hearing is than requested and it takes over a year to wait for a hearing. During that time, the client is advised to keep the office appraised of his/her status, the clinic, hospitals, etc. that has provided treatment.

After case has been in the office for over a year an notice of a hearing arrives. It indicates one of the most important days in your client immediate future is close at hand. It literally means a chance for a homeless person to obtain funds which will allow him/her to get a residence.

The client's file is pulled. A check is made to assure that the medical records for all treatments have been obtained or if not, written for and awaiting receipt. The file is reviewed and questions for the client arranged. A call is made to the client to get answers to questions that the review has kicked up, and to remind him/her of the date and time.

Many times, the client is told of weaknesses in his/her case and what is needed to help. In many cases, it will be the client's testimony at the hearing that will determine the outcome of the case. The client needs to understand the case.

The case is never simply appear, show a lack of work and obtain benefits. It is not an unemployment program, it is a program to provide disability benefits to those people that have a condition that makes them so disabled that there is no employment available to them. It is something that not all people appreciate. The fact they worked for years and years and paid and paid for benefits, they believe should give them a right to benefits simply because they can not do the work they had been doing.

Gathering everything together, a memorandum is written expressing our argument on why disability should be awarded.

The hearing is not what most people picture. There is no jury. You are not required to prove to a group of your peers that you are disabled. You deal with someone who is an expert in the area, an ALJ. This person adjudicates disability claims day after day, hour after hour.

At the hearing the Administrative Law Judge asks the majority of questions concerning the case. The questioning is to be an unbiased search for the truth. It must be remembered that everyone, judges included, has a different idea of what the burden encompasses.

Questions that are felt the ALJ missed are than addressed to the client. In some cases a medical expert is called and asked to explain the medical impairments that the file discloses. Many times the expert is asked upon reasonable restrictions that the expert feels the impairments would cause. Unfortunately, in my experience, I see medical experts less often than in past cases.

Finally a vocational expert is brought into the fray. The ALJ will usually ask the expert several hypothetical questions concerning the claimant, the impairments, and limitations. It is then the vocational experts area to express to the ALJ if there are past jobs the claimant could do in the past 15 years that he/she could return to doing with the impairments as described by the ALJ.

If the vocational expert believes that the claimant could not return to do any prior work, the question than becomes is there any work in the national economy that the claimant could do.

It is at this part of the hearing that the attorney for the claimant needs to address the testimony of the vocational expert if it is believed that it does not properly express the claimant's situation.

The hearing ends with the Judge indicating that a decision will be issued in the near future. It is a custom, to spend time with the client post hearing to go over his/her testimony, answer any questions, and tell him/her to keep their fingers crossed, it appears that the hearing was favorable, but it is up to the ALJ.

The hearing is stressful for the client and believe it or not the attorney. In many cases, I deeply believe in my client's inability to work. During the course of the hearing, it appears that the ALJ does not see the case the same way that I do. ( What strikes me is that the ALJs receive uniform training and are 'learned' in the law, yet in my jurisdiction the approval percentages for the judges vary from a 28% approval to over 60%.  It appears to me, that the vocational testimony changes depending upon judge for whom the expert is appearing.  Unfortunately the well being of a family, desperately in need of disability benefits, may rest more on the ALJ drawn then the facts of the case.  I guess I would not spend so much time pondering this situation except, most of my clients are in bad physical or mental health and except for a matter of degree of judgment, some gain benefits and some don't.)

There is the waiting period post trial that hurts. In almost all of my cases the client needs an award of benefits, so that he/she can gain at least a minimal safety net, get off the street, get help for the impairment.

A loss at this level is significant, because the percentage of cases resulting in an an award on appeal after a denial at the ALJ level is small.  A loss at the hearing level results in review by the Appeals Council. It is a paper review of the hearing and a necessary step if there is a desire to have the case reviewed in the federal court system. ( The Appeals Council has the ability to self review favorable cases and reverse what an ALJ has decided which can be devastating for a client who thought he and garnered benefits only to have them taken away.)

The whole orientation of the case shifts upon an appeal. In a system heavily weighed to support the decision of the ALJ, errors must be found, articulated and argued. Muses on post hearing matters, could take up pages and pages, and best left to another day.

Given the number of cases that are heard before an ALJ, time restraints, proof and evidence issues the system works, with some improvements it could be better, for example why not allow one strike against an assigned ALJ.  Civil trials allow such a strike, and the system hasn't collapsed.

Happy day, good day!!

Disclaimer: Blogs posted herein are intended neither as legal advice, nor do they create nor attempt to create an attorney-client relationship. The person viewing my blogs is admonished that an attorney-client relationship may only be created with the express consent to the parties to it. This blog is only the opinion of the author and are not expressed authority on any of the subjects discussed