Posts
It’s often said winning cases is a team effort, but that “team” includes more than attorneys.
“One thing we tend to focus on very heavily is the treating physician rule,” said Matt Shupe, associate attorney at Balin Law. This treating physician is often relied on to provide expert medical opinions and a detailed patient history for the disability claimant.
In order to award disability benefits to the claimant, judges are required to give deference to that claimant’s doctors, provided the opinions given are supported by objective medical findings and not inconsistent with other “substantial evidence” in the record.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) also employs its own physicians to provide medical opinions on a claimant, though these physicians may not have treated that claimant for nearly as long or as extensively as a primary care provider.
“Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) will give more weight to the opinions of SSA’s physicians to deny an individual,” Shupe said. “In doing so, the ALJ’s decision often doesn’t include all the limitations a claimant faces as opined by SSA’s physician’s report.” This discrepancy in an ALJ’s ruling can be frustrating for clients, treating physicians, and attorneys alike.
“That’s why Balin Law brings suit against the government in federal court, when appropriate,” Shupe said.“ In these instances, we have a district court judge entirely separate from the SSA that rule on whether an ALJ adequately followed the law. If we prevail, the case goes back to the SSA instructing them to apply the law properly.”
Recently, Balin Law has succeeded in litigating this very issue in three recently published decisions: Moretti v. Colvin, Matejka v. Commissioner of Social Security, and Hovater v. Colvin.
The claimant is then entitled to a new hearing, this time with the law applied properly. “More often than not, the ruling is to the tune of a different result,” Shupe said.
“One thing we tend to focus on very heavily is the treating physician rule,” said Matt Shupe, associate attorney at Balin Law. This treating physician is often relied on to provide expert medical opinions and a detailed patient history for the disability claimant.
In order to award disability benefits to the claimant, judges are required to give deference to that claimant’s doctors, provided the opinions given are supported by objective medical findings and not inconsistent with other “substantial evidence” in the record.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) also employs its own physicians to provide medical opinions on a claimant, though these physicians may not have treated that claimant for nearly as long or as extensively as a primary care provider.
“Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) will give more weight to the opinions of SSA’s physicians to deny an individual,” Shupe said. “In doing so, the ALJ’s decision often doesn’t include all the limitations a claimant faces as opined by SSA’s physician’s report.” This discrepancy in an ALJ’s ruling can be frustrating for clients, treating physicians, and attorneys alike.
“That’s why Balin Law brings suit against the government in federal court, when appropriate,” Shupe said.“ In these instances, we have a district court judge entirely separate from the SSA that rule on whether an ALJ adequately followed the law. If we prevail, the case goes back to the SSA instructing them to apply the law properly.”
Recently, Balin Law has succeeded in litigating this very issue in three recently published decisions: Moretti v. Colvin, Matejka v. Commissioner of Social Security, and Hovater v. Colvin.
The claimant is then entitled to a new hearing, this time with the law applied properly. “More often than not, the ruling is to the tune of a different result,” Shupe said.
