 |
 |
Phil, There was a very big hassle over SS stalling disability claims during Ronald Reagan's presidency. I have emailed someone who knows which archive to get into to find this information. If she can't find it, then I'll have to make a trip down town to the library in look in "Facts on File" for the years of RR presidency. Many people on this list can tell you of their experiences, and how they had to hire an attorney to get what is really theirs. I can't say that there is a WRITTEN policy in effect, but it sure makes one wonder if an UNWRITTEN policy is in effect. Its about time for an investigative reporter to go to work on SS again. If it were me applying, I'd certainly go unmedicated. But at my age, unmedicated and medicated don't seem to make much difference. I am what I am!!! just me, Marjorie 67/12 Phil, you said, in part <Snip> So people tell me. I'm not sure I'm comfortable leaving all the secrets in the hands of the lawyers. And why should that be necessary except where there are grey areas or difficult situations? We PWPs have free access to lots of info about PD independent of what our doctors tell us (or don't tell us). I'd like to be in the same position with regard to disability and lawyers. Supposedly PD is automatically eligible for Social Security disability, because it is on the SSA "listing of impairments." As I understand the process, the physician needs to provide evidence supporting the diagnosis "Parkinsonian syndrome" and to demonstrate that there is "significant rigidity, bradykinesia, or tremor in two extremities, which, singly or in combination, result in sustained disturbance of gross and dextrous movements, or gait and station." This seems simple enough to do, except the criterion doesn't specify medicated or unmedicated, nor does it define "significant" or "sustained disturbance". Just how severe must one's disease be? Can a phone call to SSA clear up these points? If that's all there is to it, then qualifying shouldn't be the big deal it is, and a lawyer shouldn't be needed. So why isn't it that simple? Do doctors and applicants not know what wording or information is needed, and thus fail to supply it, or do SSA evaluators not follow their own procedures -- and is there really a policy to deprive us of our benefits? These are some areas I'd like to have more information about.