Get a Law Firm Involved From the Start: By Tracey Cahn, Esq. attorney for Kazmierczak and Kazmierczak, LLP.

Why should I have an attorney involved in my case before I apply for Social Security benefits? 

If you have to go through a MINE FIELD, would you rather have a buddy with a map of the field or go it alone?  Sure, you may make it through the mine field successfully, but you might not. The social security process has too much in common with the mine field to go it alone.

Please note, I specified that the attorney/firm be “involved.”  I am not talking about a firm that simply signs you up and then never communicates with you until your hearing.  For a firm to be worth your confidence, you need to be able to reach out and discuss issues of importance to your case – how you determine your onset date, whether your doctors are supportive of your claim, how to explain your level of function to Social Security, etc. and etc. 

Recently I represented three very disabled people who did hire our firm at the eleventh hour; within weeks of their hearing dates.  John X, Donald Y, and Cari Z.  While I have some confidence that we will eventually prevail in at least 2 of these cases, I am confident that we would have won all three relatively easily had they come to us from the start.  Why?  John X overstated his activities, Donald Y was too embarrassed to state all his problems and Cari Z failed to realize and treat her profound mental illness until she had been out of work for nearly 3 years.

John X:

At some point John X had an attorney, but about a month before his hearing, that attorney quit on him because his case was weak.  It would have been nice had the attorney given John X more notice.  Anyway, John called our office.  After hearing the particulars, we took the case on the provision that John would get the hearing postponed.  That he did. (Please note, it is not that we could not have represented him with one week notice.  It would not have been fair to other clients who already had deadlines to be met.)

In reviewing the paperwork, I saw the prior attorney’s point.  John had horribly misrepresented his post onset work attempts and, if not corrected, there could be no finding in his favor on the Title II claim. 

In a nutshell:  John worked as a laborer for most of his life.  His parents had been very interested in antiques.  It was John’s dream to be involved in the world of antiques and to make that his occupation. As John aged, his body began to give out on him.  He could no longer lift and carry the weights required of his job.  Despite his doctors’ warnings, he continued to push himself.  After many years of pushing himself beyond reason, John cannot lift and carry, has balance issues, and is very limited with regard to sitting, standing and walking. 

John had never performed skilled work and had never done sedentary work.  When he was around age 50, John’s boss told him that he could not use him any longer primarily due to his physical impediments. 

Antiques would be the answer.  John and his wife set out to open an antique shop.  They converted part of their home for this purpose.  However, by this time, John’s body was too decrepit to do all the work necessary to attempt this business.  Long story short, if someone came to the store, John would generally be able to show his wares; the rest of the day was spent lying in a recliner and maybe doing some research on the Internet.  His “business” was really a hobby, and it was not profitable. 

So, what was standing between John and getting his Social Security benefits?  Simple, John’s statements to SSA were destroying his case.

John applied for benefits in 2009.  He had not earned any money since 2000.  Based on Social Security rules, he had to prove that his ongoing disability from work had begun and had been continuous since before the end of 2005.  This would have been supported by his doctors and his earnings, but it was not supported by John’s statements to Social Security. 

John did not understand that he had to prove ongoing disability since before the end of 2005, and he wanted to impress Social Security with how hard he worked and how long he tried to work, and how he did not ask for disability benefits lightly and how he had only put in this application as a last resort….etc.  The problem is John wrote Social Security lengthy letters about how he had been working his antique business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week until the end of 2008, 3 years after his date last insured. 

What should John have told Social Security?  The TRUTH!!!  His cause would have been much better served had he simply stated the truth; he moved from his job as a laborer due to his multiple progressive medical conditions that his employer was not willing to abide any long and then he set up an antique store that he was able to work no more than a few hours a week, and that his fatigue and pain precluded him from doing much more than that. 

John’s judge is still reviewing his case.  In the meanwhile, we were able to file his wife’s application for her disability benefits, and she prevailed quickly.