Medical Report For Determination Of Disability: Fill & Download for Free

Back in the 80s, after having worked for a large corporation as Plant Physician for 5 years, I occasionally performed disability evaluations for them. The most memorable was a woman who had applied for permanent total disability because of the severe scarring, pain, and loss of function she had suffered from 3rd degree chemical burns to both hands. I had in my own hands the report from her own evaluating physician in which he described in lurid detail severe scarring, deformities, and limited range of motion.Now this is pretty straightforward, so obviously the 1st thing I did was to say, “Please show me your hands.” To my amazement, she held out two totally normal appearing and functioning hands. I said, “I’m sorry, there must be some confusion, are you so-and-so?” Indeed she was. I continued, “The evaluation I have here says that you have severe scarring. Could you please show me that?” More or less, she said nothing. I said, “You claim IS based on severe scarring or your hands, is it not? Would you please show me a scar?” Again, not much. Totally…normal…hands.The problem was that disability hearing officers usually looked for some sort of middle ground. There was a presumption, since the claim had already been accepted, that there was indeed some sort of disability; their only job was to determine how much. It was difficult to say, “This claim is totally unfounded” without potentially irritating the adjudicator, having him disregard your evaluation completely, and giving the other side whatever they claimed. Furthermore, since hearing officers were more or less referees rather than medical evaluators, they didn’t, as a matter of course, decide whose opinion was valid, e.g., decide for themselves how much low back pain really disabled a claimant. They tended to split the baby down the middle.Nevertheless, I ended my evaluation finding 0% disability with, “Since there is such a vast difference in the opinions of the different examiners and the findings upon which they are based are so readily apparent (or not) even to someone without any medical background, I suggest the hearing officer take the unusual step of simply determining for himself whether or not this claimant has severely deformed or totally normal hands.”I never knew how it turned out. I just presumed her attorney had the good sense not to have her appear at the hearing.

Hello!I don’t know in what particular situation you’re in. But I do know this.There has to be public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments.The proposed rule change was first published in the Federal Register last month but has received scarce attention in the national media. Last week, the Social Security Administration extended the public comment period on the proposal until January 31, 2020. See for yourself, here’s the link: Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability ReviewsThe Trump administration is attacking another vulnerable population: those who are disabled and receiving Social Security Disability benefits," tweeted patient advocate Peter Morley, who lobbies Congress on healthcare issues. "This is a national disgrace.”The proposed Trump Administration rule would throw 100K's off SSDI & SSI, which would ALSO mean Medicare and Medicaid respectively for those recipients.The process for receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is already notoriously complicated, and the Trump administration is attempting to add yet another layer of complexity that critics say is aimed at slashing people's benefits.As The Philadelphia Inquirer reported last week, "those already receiving disability benefits are subject to so-called continuing disability reviews, which determine whether they are still deserving of compensation for an injury, illness, or other incapacitating problem as their lives progress."Currently, beneficiaries are placed in three separate categories based on the severity of their disability: "Medical Improvement Not Expected," "Medical Improvement Expected," and "Medical Improvement Possible." People with more severe medical conditions face less frequent disability reviews. Here’s the link to that story: Trump administration proposes Social Security rule changes that could cut off thousands of disabled recipientsThe Trump administration's proposed rule would another category called "Medical Improvement Likely," which would subject beneficiaries to disability reviews every two years.According to the Inquirer, "an estimated 4.4 million beneficiaries would be included in that designation, many of them children and so-called Step 5 recipients, an internal Social Security classification."Step 5 recipients, the Inquirer noted, "are typically 50 to 65 years of age, in poor health, without much education or many job skills [and] often suffer from maladies such as debilitating back pain, depression, a herniated disc, or schizophrenia."Jennifer Burdick, supervising attorney with Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, said placing Step 5 recipients in the new "Medical Improvement Likely" category and subjecting them to reviews every two years would represent "a radical departure from past practice."Kate Lang, senior attorney at the non-profit group Justice in Aging, told the Inquirer that the Trump administration is "out to shrink the rolls.""And they're setting people up to not comply," said Lang.In addition to lack of coverage from the national media, most members of Congress have also been relatively quiet about the Trump administration's proposal.Two Pennsylvania Democrats—Sen. Bob Casey and Rep. Brendan Boyle—condemned the proposed rule change in statements to the Inquirer.The proposal, said Casey, "appears to be yet another attempt by the Trump administration to make it more difficult for people with disabilities to receive benefits."Boyle said the "changes seem arbitrary, concocted with no evidence or data to justify such consequential modifications.""This seems like the next iteration of the Trump administration's continued efforts to gut Social Security benefits," Boyle added. jake (@johnsonjakep) | Twitter

The disability claim is submitted to a Disability Determination Service (DDS). DDS's are run by the states, but they are funded by and are supposed to follow the Social Security Administration's guidelines for determining disability. The claim is examined by claims examiners who then seek more information as necessary about the nature of the disability, and the claimant's educational and work history. Disability for SSDI purposes is not simply a medical question, the primary issue being adjudicated is whether or not a claimant can engage in Substantial Gainful Activity, and whether recovery is probable or if the disability will be a lasting condition. There is a very detailed examination of medical reports, work history, and education: While an uneducated ditch digger with a back injury might be declared disabled, an accountant that becomes a quadriplegic MAY not be, since he could still engage in SGA with physical accommodations and equipment. Initial decisions made by the DDS are subject to appeals to an Administrative Law Judge, if the claimant (and his legal representative) disagrees with the DDS's initial determination. There is also a process for continuing review where the DDS can continue to assess the claimants condition for improvement.