Megathread Phil's SSDI Review -

[Splendid]

I'd like to discuss Phil's upcoming SSDI review later this year.

For those of you who aren't in the loop: Phil will be having an interview later this year where someone from the government will interview him to determine if he will continue to receive tardbucks or not. Due to his own actions, Phil's condition has not improved because he refuses to see doctors or take prescribed medication. I believe some people have also said that the government expects him to eventually improve and get out of the system, although I have no source on that.

Given that Phil has actually gotten worse, many here on KF have speculated that his disability interview will result in him either being disqualified from SSDI, or being given a representative payee. A representative payee is someone who would recieve all of Phil's SSDI, and would be responsible for spending it on his behalf. Only after all of Phil's needs are met, including future needs such as building up a savings account, insurance, and perhaps putting money away for retirement if the payee does not believe that Phil will be recieveing government assistance indefinitely. He is allowed to have the rest.

The Social Security Administration normally prefers that family or friends act as a representative payee, but of course his family won't talk to him and it seems that they do actually check up on you before letting you be a payee, so his "friends" probably won't qualify. This is important.

This would mean that Phil's income would massively decline. First off, private organizations are allowed to charge a fee for acting as a representative payee (but only after seeing to all of his needs.) That means that he might have very little money left over once they're done. In fact, he may have no money at all, since he insists on living in very, very expensive places like Portland and San Francisco.
He also won't like how representative payees will spend his money. For example, for a payee, housing is more important than tattoos, so Phil's dumb shit money will have to go into things like that, and he won't be happy about that at all.

The real question is: how likely is he to get a payee? I feel like it's sort of become a meme now that he will get one, but according to the Social Security Administration, the volunteer program is quite overloaded, and he's not exactly the most sympathetic case.

Does anyone here actually have experience with this sort of thing? Some insight or predictions would be appreciated.

 

[APerson]

Stupid question, but if he lies about doing his stuff and still gets worse, wouldn't they throw more money at him?

 

[Splendid]

Stupid question, but if he lies about doing his stuff and still gets worse, wouldn't they throw more money at him?

Yeah, but if he's just getting worse and worse, he's just more and more likely to get a payee, so he's just shooting himself in the foot.

 

[sikotik]

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/re.../ssdi/keeping-benefits-continuing-reviews.htm
Sample SSDI Review Paperwork: http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/sites/default/files/SSA-454-BK.pdf

 

[Splendid]

Your Chance of Losing Benefits
Although it is possible to lose benefits after a CDR, it is highly unlikely. In the most recent study published by the SSA, disability benefits after a CDR are continued over 95% of the time. Most individuals with impairments serious enough to be approved for disability in the first place do not medically improve, nor do they return to regular employment. However, for individuals who were approved for disability benefits based upon some type of injury or medical condition in which improvement was likely (such as a fracture), it is more likely their disability benefits may not be continued. It depends upon your impairment, the likelihood of medical improvement, and if you have returned to regular work activity.

So he's probably going to keep his benefits.
Damn, that sucks, I would like to see him lose them. It's hard to think of someone who's less deserving.

 

[Twrx]

I think it's pretty likely he'll get a payee. Hopefully it's not one of his retarded transtrender friends.

 

[Null]

Yeah, there's no way he's not being granted in Cali.

 

[AnOminous]

I'd like to discuss Phil's upcoming SSDI review later this year.

For those of you who aren't in the loop: Phil will be having an interview later this year where someone from the government will interview him to determine if he will continue to receive tardbucks or not. Due to his own actions, Phil's condition has not improved because he refuses to see doctors or take prescribed medication. I believe some people have also said that the government expects him to eventually improve and get out of the system, although I have no source on that.

It's from the ALJ opinion he posted part of.

I'll just post all the text that was legible.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

After careful consideration of the entire record, I make the following findings:

1. The claimant’s date last insured is December 31, 2014.

2. There is no evidence of substantial gainful activity since August 31, 2010, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1520(b), 404.1571 et seq., 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.).

There is no evidence that the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time relevant to her applications for benefits (see, Exhibits 3D-8D, 10D-12D, 2E & 3E and hearing testimony). Therefore, a finding of disability is not precluded on the basis of work activity.

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: a depressive disorder, an anxiety disorder, and a personality disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).

The claimant has alleged disability on the basis of autism/Asperger’s syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a generalized anxiety disorder, a dissociative disorder, a personality disorder and fibromyalgia. She reported that her symptoms include suicidal ideation, difficulty interacting with others, difficulty sleeping, memory problems and impaired concentration. As a result of her symptoms, the claimant has become homeless and has difficulty performing tasks, including personal care. The claimant also testified that she is transgender woman who is transitioning from a man (see, Exhibits ?E, 6E, 10E, 11E & 15E and hearing testimony).

As will be discussed below, the findings reported in the claimant’s medical records indicate that the above impairments have more than a minimal effect on her ability to work. I therefore find that the claimant’s impairments are “severe.”

4. The severity of the claimant’s impairments meets the criteria of Section 12.06 of the Listing of Impairments found at 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 416.920(d) and 416.925).

According to the claimant’s medical records, she legally changed her name after determining that she wanted to transition from male to female and was placed on a hormone regimen by her physician in May 2020 (Exhibit 1F/36). Thereafter, during a subsequent visit to the Mazzoni Center in June 2011, the claimant requested a referral for psychiatric treatment as she was

[. . .]

August 2013, she presented to the emergency room shortly thereafter, with suicidal ideation. Her emergency room physician suggested that the claimant’s current symptoms may have been precipitated by the new medication and her medication was stopped (Exhibit 13F/4).

At the hearing, the medical expert testified that he had reviewed the record, including the evidence of persistent depression, uncontrolled with psychotropic medication, and of a personality disorder, with difficulty functioning on a day-to-day basis. Dr. Tanenhaus specifically noted that the record describes a sleep disturbance, psychomotor agitation, feelings of worthlessness and difficulty concentrating, as contemplated under the “paragraph A” criteria of Section 12.04. He further testified that the record describes evidence of persistent disturbances of mood or affect and intense and unstable interpersonal relationships, as contemplated under the “paragraph B” criteria of both Section 12.04 and Section 12.08. In addition, in Dr. Tanenhaus’ opinion, the “paragraph B” criteria of both Section 12.04 and Section 12.08 are satisfied because the record indicates that the claimant’s impairments cause a mild restriction in activities of daily living, marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning, marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace, and no episodes of decompensation of extended duration.

I accept his testimony and accord it great weight, as it was based upon a review of the record in its entirety and is supported by the underlying medical evidence of record. Taking into consideration the opinion of the medical expert and the record as a whole, I find that the claimant suffers from a Listing level affective disorder that meets the criteria of Section 12.04 and from a Listing level personality disorder that meets the criteria of Section 12.08.

In making these findings, I have also considered other opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-6p and 06-3p. I give some

[. . .]

I have also considered all symptoms and the [. . .] consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the [. . .] 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 and SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p. After considering the evidence of record, I find that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, and that the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are generally credible.

5. The claimant has been under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act since August 31, 2010, the alleged onset date of disability (20 CFR 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d)).

DECISION

Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits filed on June 27, 2011, the claimant has been disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act since August 31, 2010.

Based on the application for supplemental security income protectively filed on February 16, 2013, the claimant has been disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act since August 31, 2010.

The component of the Social Security Administration responsible for authorizing supplemental security income will advise the claimant regarding the nondisability requirements for these payments and, if the claimant is eligible, the amount and the months for which payment will be made.

Medical improvement is expected with appropriate treatment. Consequently, a continuing disability review is recommended in 24 months.

/s/
Richard P. Laverdure
Administrative Law Judge

November 10, 2014
Date

Specifically, it's the last page, which is why he's having a CDR after just two years instead of a longer period. Where he could run into issues is if he's willfully not getting appropriate treatment.

Chris is different in that he's never been expected to improve.

 

[Splendid]

It's from the ALJ opinion he posted part of.

I'll just post all the text that was legible.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

After careful consideration of the entire record, I make the following findings:

1. The claimant’s date last insured is December 31, 2014.

2. There is no evidence of substantial gainful activity since August 31, 2010, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1520(b), 404.1571 et seq., 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.).

There is no evidence that the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time relevant to her applications for benefits (see, Exhibits 3D-8D, 10D-12D, 2E & 3E and hearing testimony). Therefore, a finding of disability is not precluded on the basis of work activity.

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: a depressive disorder, an anxiety disorder, and a personality disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).

The claimant has alleged disability on the basis of autism/Asperger’s syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a generalized anxiety disorder, a dissociative disorder, a personality disorder and fibromyalgia. She reported that her symptoms include suicidal ideation, difficulty interacting with others, difficulty sleeping, memory problems and impaired concentration. As a result of her symptoms, the claimant has become homeless and has difficulty performing tasks, including personal care. The claimant also testified that she is transgender woman who is transitioning from a man (see, Exhibits ?E, 6E, 10E, 11E & 15E and hearing testimony).

As will be discussed below, the findings reported in the claimant’s medical records indicate that the above impairments have more than a minimal effect on her ability to work. I therefore find that the claimant’s impairments are “severe.”

4. The severity of the claimant’s impairments meets the criteria of Section 12.06 of the Listing of Impairments found at 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 416.920(d) and 416.925).

According to the claimant’s medical records, she legally changed her name after determining that she wanted to transition from male to female and was placed on a hormone regimen by her physician in May 2020 (Exhibit 1F/36). Thereafter, during a subsequent visit to the Mazzoni Center in June 2011, the claimant requested a referral for psychiatric treatment as she was

[. . .]

August 2013, she presented to the emergency room shortly thereafter, with suicidal ideation. Her emergency room physician suggested that the claimant’s current symptoms may have been precipitated by the new medication and her medication was stopped (Exhibit 13F/4).

At the hearing, the medical expert testified that he had reviewed the record, including the evidence of persistent depression, uncontrolled with psychotropic medication, and of a personality disorder, with difficulty functioning on a day-to-day basis. Dr. Tanenhaus specifically noted that the record describes a sleep disturbance, psychomotor agitation, feelings of worthlessness and difficulty concentrating, as contemplated under the “paragraph A” criteria of Section 12.04. He further testified that the record describes evidence of persistent disturbances of mood or affect and intense and unstable interpersonal relationships, as contemplated under the “paragraph B” criteria of both Section 12.04 and Section 12.08. In addition, in Dr. Tanenhaus’ opinion, the “paragraph B” criteria of both Section 12.04 and Section 12.08 are satisfied because the record indicates that the claimant’s impairments cause a mild restriction in activities of daily living, marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning, marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace, and no episodes of decompensation of extended duration.

I accept his testimony and accord it great weight, as it was based upon a review of the record in its entirety and is supported by the underlying medical evidence of record. Taking into consideration the opinion of the medical expert and the record as a whole, I find that the claimant suffers from a Listing level affective disorder that meets the criteria of Section 12.04 and from a Listing level personality disorder that meets the criteria of Section 12.08.

In making these findings, I have also considered other opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-6p and 06-3p. I give some

[. . .]

I have also considered all symptoms and the [. . .] consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the [. . .] 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 and SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p. After considering the evidence of record, I find that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, and that the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are generally credible.

5. The claimant has been under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act since August 31, 2010, the alleged onset date of disability (20 CFR 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d)).

DECISION

Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits filed on June 27, 2011, the claimant has been disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act since August 31, 2010.

Based on the application for supplemental security income protectively filed on February 16, 2013, the claimant has been disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act since August 31, 2010.

The component of the Social Security Administration responsible for authorizing supplemental security income will advise the claimant regarding the nondisability requirements for these payments and, if the claimant is eligible, the amount and the months for which payment will be made.

Medical improvement is expected with appropriate treatment. Consequently, a continuing disability review is recommended in 24 months.

/s/
Richard P. Laverdure
Administrative Law Judge

November 10, 2014
Date

Specifically, it's the last page, which is why he's having a CDR after just two years instead of a longer period. Where he could run into issues is if he's willfully not getting appropriate treatment.

Chris is different in that he's never been expected to improve.

So you think a payee is likely?

 

[Strelok]

I think it's pretty likely he'll get a payee. Hopefully it's not one of his exceptional transtrender friends.

No it would be great because within like a month they'd be embezzling all his money.

 

[AnOminous]

So you think a payee is likely?

I think it being yanked entirely is more likely than a payee, but the most likely event is it just continues unchanged.

We don't really know all the facts. It's possible Phil has fucked up his situation more than we know.

 

[Batman VS Tony Danza]

Do they keep giving homeless people SSDI even if they've shown no attempts at getting shelter? I know Phil is trying to make it look like he's serious about getting housing just for this interview but I'm curious how he's going to answer for all the time he hasn't had any place of residence. In a logical world a last ditch attempt to get on a list for free/cheap housing doesn't seem like it would cut it.

In the end Phil is the only one who can fuck this up. From what I've read they seem more concerned that you aren't stashing the money somewhere and I think it's safe to say Phil isn't doing that.

 

[sikotik]

Do they keep giving homeless people SSDI even if they've shown no attempts at getting shelter?

Yes.

 

[Twrx]

No it would be great because within like a month they'd be embezzling all his money.

I hadn't thought of that.

 

[An Ghost]

That's great Phil claimed in his papers to have fibromyalgia because he has literally never mentioned it ever again and bullshitted for government asspats.

 

[StoicMoose]

Yes.

This is why I'm of the opinion that there's basically nothing short of a serious crime could stop Phil from receiving his tardbux. Once you're in the system, you're pretty much set.

 

[Ol' Slag]

We need a countdown clock till his tard review. Also, we should just make the countdown clock public but without a reason behind it. It would make Phil chimpout magnificently.

 

[Splendid]

We could make a countdown clock that counts down to nothing in particular. Just make one that counts down to like October 11th of this year. Maybe something interesting will happen.

 

[Giraff3]

SSDI is a bit different. A couple of the review parts is:
Is this person mentality fit for public workforce?
Is this person able to sustain themselves?

Phil and his antics (old and new) should deem him unable and he has a paper trail to prove it. Imagine him working at a gas store or fast food job in his current state. He'd get one look from some dude and chimp out in a heartbeat lol.
The way he spends it is supposed to be recorded and documented, but most officials won't fool with it because it's a lot of trouble to do so. Recipients are allotted a certain percentage for recreation/entertainment, but Phil is surely over that percentage with his frivolous spending.
If the officials do their job properly (optimistic), they'll arrange for a payee or require him to get medical attention to continue. The payee is supposed to keep a log of everything, so it going to one of his rando tranny pals is slim.
It really all depends on the social worker assigned to the case. Most are overworked and only scrape the top layer, so more than likely it will go in his favor. We'll see how it comes out.

 

[AnOminous]

Phil and his antics (old and new) should deem him unable and he has a paper trail to prove it. Imagine him working at a gas store or fast food job in his current state. He'd get one look from some dude and chimp out in a heartbeat lol.

Other than trooning it up there's no difference between the lardass Phil now and the lardass Phil who worked at Wawa for months with no problem. He didn't quit because he was disabled, but because he threw a tard rage at them not changing his name instantly.