Monday, October 7, 2013

National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR) Issues Statement Regarding 60 Minutes' Report On Social Security Disability Programs

60 Minutes Perpetuates Harmful Myths About Social Security Disability Programs In Misleading, Inaccurate Report

Englewood Cliffs, NJ -- A 60 Minutes broadcast aired last night about the Social Security disability programs was an egregious piece of biased, anecdote-based reporting that lacked critical facts and context for viewers. This is the latest in an array of sensationalized and misleading media coverage that has perpetuated myths and stereotypes about the Social Security disability programs and the people they help. These media reports have done a tremendous disservice to viewers, as well as to people with disabilities. The National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR) feels compelled to respond and set the record straight about the Social Security disability programs, which serve as a vital resource for millions of Americans with significant disabilities and severe illnesses.

Despite criticizing the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) programs, 60 Minutes did not offer SSA a chance to respond or be included in the piece. Moreover, the report was entirely one-sided, as the producers did not speak with anyone who receives benefits, or any disability advocates. NOSSCR joined nearly two-dozen national disability advocacy organizations in writing to 60 Minutes’ producers before the piece aired, calling for balance and accuracy in their reporting on the disability programs. 60 Minutes did not respond. Millions of American workers depend on the modest but vital benefits they receive, and it would have been essential, and good journalism practice, to hear their side of the story.

The fact is that Social Security’s disability programs are a core component of our nation’s Social Security system. The Social Security disability standard is the most restrictive in the developed world.  Extremely strict eligibility requirements mean that no more than four in ten applicants are approved for benefits. Demonstrating eligibility requires extensive medical evidence, and many individuals are denied despite significant disabilities and chronic illnesses. Benefits are modest but vital – averaging just over $500 per month for Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries and approximately $1,130 per month for Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries. For many, disability benefits make it possible to secure stable housing and purchase food, life-sustaining medications, and other basic necessities.

Moreover, the increase in the number of people receiving Disability Insurance comes as no surprise and was projected by Social Security’s actuaries as far back as 1994. Social Security’s Chief Actuary notes that the growth is primarily due to demographic factors: the aging of the baby boomers into their high disability years, women entering the workforce in greater numbers in the 1970s and 1980s so that they now qualify for Disability Insurance based on their own contributions, and the increase in the retirement age.

NOSSCR condemns any misuse of the Social Security disability programs. We hold our members to high ethical standards and enforce an annual ethics education requirement. Any individual who seeks to abuse vital programs like the Social Security disability programs does so at the expense of the millions of vulnerable beneficiaries for whom benefits are a vital lifeline, and should be brought to justice. We encourage anyone who suspects abuse of the Social Security disability programs to report it via Social Security’s hotline 1-800-269-0271 or online at www.oig.ssa.gov.

However, it is extremely unfortunate and disappointing that 60 Minutes misled their viewers by painting the entire program with the brush of one bad apple, without putting it in the context of the millions of individuals who receive benefits appropriately and for whom they are a vital lifeline – as well as the many disability advocates around the country who work hard to protect the rights of individuals with significant disabilities and serious illnesses who have been wrongly denied Social Security disability benefits.

An important fact left out of 60 Minutes’ report is that disability advocates are paid by the individual claimants they represent, out of the claimants’ past-due benefits – not out of taxpayer dollars. Many individuals applying for disability benefits seek help from disability advocates to help them navigate the complex, often daunting process and advocate on their behalf – which can be of real help during what is already an incredibly stressful time for individuals dealing with serious medical problems.

The Social Security Administration works hard to ensure program integrity, but it requires adequate resources to do so. It has been deprived of the administrative resources it requires to conduct necessary program integrity work for several years – and the ongoing government shutdown has only stymied the agency further. Congress must provide SSA with sufficient administrative resources to ensure that benefits are paid to the right person, in the right amount, and at the right time.

For more information, read a Just the Facts sheet, or a NOSSCR fact sheet on SSDI and SSI. To speak with a representative or member of NOSSCR or to read true client testimonials, please contact Lauren Weybrew at lweybrew@douglasgould.com or 646-214-0514.

About NOSSCR
NOSSCR, a specialized bar association for attorneys and other advocates who represent people with disabilities, has been a pioneer in legal continuing education and public policy advocacy since 1979. We represent Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Insurance claimants through the adjudication process, advocating for the income rights of people with disabilities. Learn more at www.nosscr.org.

60 Minutes Report Denounced For Disability Misinformation


60 Minutes Report Denounced For Disability Misinformation

National Disability Organizations Criticize Media Coverage That Echoes Misleading NPR Report

This link   http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/07/60-minutes-report-denounced-for-disability-misi/196317 is a post by Media Matters which denounces the 60 minutes report. Highlights are below:


Lisa Ekman, Director of Federal Policy at Health & Disability Advocates, said the organization was "extremely disappointed that 60 Minutes chose to air such a one-sided story based on anecdote and supposition ... Misleading media reports like the one on 60 Minutes distract from focusing on the real issue of helping American workers with and without disabilities achieve economic security."

 

The blog goes on to say that "The recent 60 Minutes broadcast is just the latest in an array of sensational and misleading media reports that have perpetuated myths and stereotypes about the Social Security disability programs and the people they help. These media reports do a tremendous disservice to viewers as well as to people with disabilities. Any misuse of these vital programs is unacceptable; however it is unfortunate and disappointing when media reports mislead their viewers by painting entire programs with the brush of one or a few bad apples, without putting them in the context of the millions of individuals who receive benefits appropriately, and for whom they are a vital lifeline -- as well as the many disability advocates around the country who work hard to protect the rights of individuals with significant disabilities and serious illnesses who have been wrongly denied Social Security disability benefits."

Friday, September 20, 2013

Las Vegas SUN Covers Story of Memory Loss Patient Seeking Disability

Tina Kitchel at home with her son Christian, 3, on Thursday, June 20, 2013, in Pahrump. Kitchel went into cardiac arrest three years ago during the birth of her son Christian. Her heart stopped for 27 minutes and she was in a coma for 13 days. Today, her brain no longer has the function to store short term memory.
 

Tina Kitchel stirred awake in Spring Valley Hospital with a tube in her mouth and her arms riddled with needle marks from an IV.
Her husband stood at her bedside, relieved to see her awaken. She stared back at him like he was a stranger in a crowd. There was so much she didn’t know. Nearly two weeks prior, she was in the third trimester of pregnancy — their second child. A complication stopped her heart for 27 minutes. Doctors performed an emergency cesarean section in the hallway of the hospital to rescue her child — and bring her back to life. She had been in a coma for the past 13 days.

She was unaware of these events. And that man at her bedside telling her all this? She didn’t recognize him as her husband, Jason.

She later learned that while her heart was stopped, her hippocampus — the portion of her brain that stores short-term memory — atrophied. She was told she would never be able to recall a memory again; not her wedding day, the births of her children, their school graduations, their wedding days. Her life would never be the same.

Today, three years later, “It’s like I woke up in a dystopian society,” Tina says. Tina, now 41, and her family are still adjusting to this new reality. Her neurologist, Dr. Mouchir Harb, told Tina she is disabled and would never be able to work again. This news crushed her; she had worked since she was 17. She would need to apply for Social Security disability payments. In her case, that would amount to $2,000 a month, a stipend for her children and medical insurance. The checks would give the family some stability in case Jason were ever to lose his job.

But the Social Security Administration has rejected her application for disability payments. Despite her medical issues, she can watch surveillance monitors, the government says. Or she can peel potatoes.
Tina is appealing, but she won’t get a chance to make her case to an administrative law judge until April. The process could leave her without disability insurance benefits for up to a year and a half — if she wins.

But it’s not just about money. At issue is why the government considers some people disabled, but not others.

Tina is one of 3,616 people in Clark County seeking Social Security disability payments. They’re competing for the attention of six administrative judges and they’re looking at 11 months of waiting.

• • •

Tina Kitchel thought she had her life mapped out perfectly. There was no allowance for becoming disabled. She had worked in hospitals since she was 17, most recently as a monitor technician.
She had plans to return to school to become a physician’s assistant. She and her husband had one child and wanted a second, and Tina was making enough money to allow Jason to return to school to better his career.

She worked five 12-hour shifts each week at three different hospitals. From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., she tracked the heart beats of nearly 20 patients, waiting to catch an irregularity. Patient’s lives depended on her vigilance.  It was a stressful job, but she loved it. It gave her purpose. She was the breadwinner. She was independent.

“I used to know where I’m supposed to go, or who I’m supposed to be,” Kitchel said. The brain damage has robbed Tina of that identity. She can’t leave the house alone because she gets disoriented simply walking around the block. She can’t use the oven to cook family meals because she might forget to turn the burners off. Her damaged depth perception and memory prevent her from driving.

“She has a severe brain injury that affects her ability to cognitively function with any kind of work,” Harb said. “She is very forgetful. ... She can do simple things, but she cannot take care of her bank account. She needs help with her basic needs.”

Tina compares her memory to a cracked water bottle. Memories go in, but facts and details constantly leak out, leaving her with with nothing at all. She can remember major life events up until 14 years old, fragmented memories up until 28 years old, and nothing today.

“It’s either right now or the future,” Jason said. “There is no past. That took a lot of adjustment.”
Memories like Jonathan — her oldest son — graduating from kindergarten or that he loves her pancakes, or Christian’s first birthday. They are just pictures and notes, devoid of nostalgia, in the journal she keeps on her pink iPad. She knows she was there, but she can’t recall the details of that moment to make it real.

As for being married to Jason, it’s a fact she’s come to lovingly accept. To make it easier, Jason has made a photo video of their wedding which she watches frequently. She may not be able to remember the details, but she can see the joy they both shared that day.

Despite Harb’s diagnosis, Tina has been denied disability insurance benefits three times — once by Prudential’s long-term disability insurance program and twice by the Social Security Administration.
Her second examination with a Disability Determination Service’s appointed doctor took place in a Las Vegas Best Western conference room. Jason dropped Tina off at the hotel because she had to be examined alone and that would last several hours.
But the doctor ended the exam early and left Tina wandering the street confused and searching for Jason until he tracked her down at a nearby bus stop.

Both examinations with the Social Security Administration ended with a form letter of rejection that read in part:  “While we realize that you are somewhat limited in your physical activity, your condition does not meet the severity requirements for total disability,” the letter stated. “Based on evidence, you should be capable of some type of work activity.”

While all three doctors told her she could work, only her neurologist is allowed to medically approve her. He is the one legally responsible for any accident she may cause at work. And without his approval, she would have to lie on her job application — making her liable for anything that would happen to her at work. It’s a risk she and Jason aren’t willing to take.

• • •

Three years. That’s how long it takes a person applying for disability benefits to start receiving their insurance checks, Las Vegas disability insurance attorney Gerald Welt estimates.
A lot can happen in three years. Tina was making $60,000 three years ago. Welt has seen clients use up their life savings and lose their homes to foreclosure because they have no income. He’s watched people with bad backs deteriorate waiting for medical insurance to pay for surgery. Some clients died waiting for their disability insurance benefits.

People who require disability insurance payments aren’t able to receive them in a timely manner, said Welt, who has been working disability insurance law for more than 30 years. The process is broken.
“This is not a healthy existence they want to be in,” Welt said. “Frankly I think a lot of my clients, if they could’ve gotten the appropriate medical care within a year or two, they could’ve gone back to work.”

Every disability insurance case in Nevada starts with a Nevada Disability Determination staff caseworker. To qualify, applicants must prove they’ve worked a predetermined number of years based on their age. In Tina’s case, she must have worked five out of the last 10 years. Then the caseworker and a consulting doctor examine the applicant and talk to his or her doctor to determine the severity of the disability.
If the caseworker and consulting doctor decide that person can work any job that exists in the U.S. economy — and that can include peeling potatoes — the person is disqualified from receiving disability benefits. There are no benefits for a partial disability.
The process takes between four and six months, Welt said. Two-thirds of the applicants are denied on their initial application, Welt said based on statistics from the National Organization for Social Security Claimant Representatives. If an application is denied, the person must file an appeal for the case to be considered by a new caseworker and doctor.
Only 18 percent of the appeals are approved, according to NOSSCR. Yet the process can take up to a year, Welt said.

Most applicants end up in court with a lawyer to present their case to an administrative judge. Once there, Welt said a person has about 50 percent of a chance to be approved. Even if approved, the checks don't arrive for at least five months.  “Basically everybody is treating them like they’re liars,” Welt said. “It’s embarrassing. People don’t want to do this, some people are sick of waiting too long.”

The Social Security Administration declined to comment for this story.

Welt said part of the problem is that caseworkers and doctors are understaffed, but they also face no repercussions for denying a person their disability. Sometimes it is easier for them to reject someone than approve them, Welt said.

“What’s the penalty for turning down the people? Except for compassion, they don’t pay interest, they don’t pay attorneys fees — nothing happens to them,” Welt said. “They just turn down the applicants and it goes on to the next level of government.”

Yet Nevada isn’t even the worst state, Welt said. The broken process spans the entire country.

• • •

Tina is awaiting her first visit in a year with her neurologist. Christian, now 3 and healthy, sits on Tina’s leg in the patient’s room, playing with a Hulk action figure; Jason and 6-year-old Jonathan are sitting next to Tina.  Tina's memory has been improving. Routine helps, and her iPhone acts as a second brain, compensating for lapses in memory. She sets alarms with notes attached to remind her what task needs to be done. She is able to take care of the kids, feed the dogs and complete household chores. Last time, Harb left Tina a twinge of hope that she’d be able to work or drive again.“We can talk about it next year,” Harb told Tina.

Now, when Harb walked in, he greeted Tina with a smile. “How have you been since the last time I saw you,” Harb said. Tina looked perplexed. “I was picturing a different doctor,” she said. “You forget me already,” Harb said. “But we had such a good relationship. I did not forget you. That means one of us has something wrong.”

Nothing had changed since the last time the two met, Harb said later. It didn’t shock him; he knows the brain does not regenerate. He was shocked to hear Tina hadn’t received disability benefits yet. After Harb completed routine reflex tests and questions about Tina's memory. Jason tells Harb that Tina still can’t go grocery shopping alone because she becomes disoriented, that she can’t operate their bank account or cook.

Still, Tina feels she is getting better. She asks the question she had been waiting about a year to ask.
“Of course you cannot work, there is no way you can work,” Harb said. “... You are never going to get better.”

Tina cast eyes downward.

“You should be grateful and accept what you have because you could be in a nursing home,” Harb said. “At least your kid has a lap to sit on.”

“It’s just hard to accept,” Tina said.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

  • Study shows that malpractice suits are playing an unexpected role in patient safety efforts, as a source of valuable information about medical error

Opinion Twitter Logo.

Learning From Litigation By JOANNA C. SCHWARTZ
Published: May 16, 2013


LOS ANGELES — MUCH of the discussion over the Affordable Care Act has focused on whether it will bring down health care costs. Less attention has been paid to another goal of the act: improving patient safety. Each year tens of thousands of people die, and hundreds of thousands more are injured, as a result of medical error.

Experts agree that the best way to reduce medical error is to gather and analyze information about past errors with an eye toward improving future care. But many believe that a major barrier to doing so is the medical malpractice tort system: the threat of being sued is believed to prevent the kind of transparency necessary to identify and learn from errors when they occur.
 
New evidence, however, contradicts the conventional wisdom that malpractice litigation compromises the patient safety movement’s call for transparency. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring: the openness and transparency promoted by patient safety advocates appear to be influencing hospitals’ responses to litigation risk.
 
I recently surveyed more than 400 people responsible for hospital risk management, claims management and quality improvement in health care centers around the country, in cooperation with the American Society of Health Care Risk Managers, and I interviewed dozens more.
 
My interviewees confirmed that while hospitals historically took an adversarial and secretive approach to lawsuits and error, that has begun to change. In recent years, hospitals have become increasingly open with patients: over 80 percent of hospitals in my study have a policy of apologizing to patients when errors occur. And hospitals are more willing to discuss and learn from errors with hospital staff.
 
What accounts for these changes? Several factors appear to have overcome historical resistance to transparency, including widespread laws requiring disclosure to patients and confidentiality protections for internal discussions of error. Hospitals have also found that disclosing errors to patients and offering early settlements reduces the costs and frequency of litigation.
 
My study also shows that malpractice suits are playing an unexpected role in patient safety efforts, as a source of valuable information about medical error. Over 95 percent of the hospitals in my study integrate information from lawsuits into patient safety efforts. And risk managers and patient-safety personnel overwhelmingly report that lawsuit data have proved useful in efforts to identify and address error.
 
One might think that hospitals would have little to learn from lawsuits, given other requirements that hospitals report, investigate and analyze medical error. But participants in my study said that lawsuits can reveal previously unknown incidents of medical errors — particularly diagnostic and treatment errors with delayed manifestations that other reporting systems are not designed to collect.
 
Lawsuits can also reveal errors that should have been reported but were not — medical providers notoriously underreport errors (although studies have shown that the threat of litigation is not responsible for this underreporting) and lawsuits may fill these gaps.
Moreover, litigation discovery can unearth useful details about safety and quality concerns. Analyses of claim trends can reveal problematic procedures and departments, and closed litigation files can serve as rich teaching tools.
 
True, malpractice litigation data also have many flaws: too few malpractice claims are filed to reflect an accurate picture of a hospital’s shortcomings, and the amount awarded in litigation may not reflect the merits of the claims. Yet hospitals say they recognize and account for these flaws in their review.
 
The assumed negative effects of malpractice litigation on patient safety have been used to justify numerous proposals for reform, including damages caps and “health courts,” administrative bodies that adjudicate malpractice claims outside the tort system. Politicians, patient safety advocates and medical providers argue that such reforms will encourage more open discussions of medical error by removing the specter of liability.
My study suggests, however, that hospitals can — and have — found ways to increase openness and transparency without these dramatic interventions. Moreover, because lawsuits help to identify incidents and details of medical error, limitations on lawsuits may actually impede patient safety efforts.
 
The Affordable Care Act pours millions into patient safety for research centers, demonstration projects and other programs. Proposed reforms and initiatives should not rely on conventional wisdom about the negative effects of malpractice litigation. Medical-malpractice lawsuits do not have the harmful effects on patient safety that they are imagined to have — and, in fact, they can do some good.
 
Joanna C. Schwartz is an assistant professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Workers Compensation Laws Are Specific For Each State

Nevada workers compensation, sometimes referred to as "Workman's Compensation" or "Worker's Comp", is the name given to a system of laws meant to protect injured workers. The goal is to make sure that somebody who is injured at work receives appropriate medical care, lost wages relating to the on-the-job injury, and, if necessary, retraining and rehabilitation, so as to be able to return to the workforce. If there is a permanent total disability and the worker cannot return to any job, then application for Social Security Disability benefits may be recommended. When there is a death of a worker on the job, members of the workers' families are ordinarily eligible for benefits.
 
Nevada's system of workers compensation is compulsory, meaning that employers are required to provide workers compensation insurance for their employees. Workers compensation insurance may be provided through a private insurance carrier, or employers may self-insure. Waivers are not permitted. Full medical benefits are provided to employees entitled to workers compensation benefits, with no time or monetary limits. Initial choice of physician is made by the employee.

Frequently, injured workers will benefit from consulting an attorney who can advise them in protecting their workers compensation benefits and defending against the premature termination of benefits.   In the State of Nevada there is no special rule limiting attorney fees for worker's compensation matters. When hiring a workers compensation attorney be sure to know and understand how the fees will be paid and what percentage of the award your attorney will be charging. There will be costs involved. Ask about those costs as well. You should be asked to sign a retainer agreement. The fee and cost information should be clearly outlined and explained to you.

An injured or sick employee is entitled to receive all necessary first aid, medical, surgical and hospital services required to cure or relieve the effects of a job-related injury or disease. If you are denied workers compensation, please contact our firm today for a free consultation. Let us help you evaluate your case, assist you with the process and file an appeal.

You may be entitled to compensation while off work, during job retraining or while you search for a job. You may also be entitled to a disability settlement. As an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Nevada, who is familiar with the Nevada workers compensation laws, I can help you determine how the current State of Nevada's workers compensation laws apply to you or your family member. Call our office at (702) 382-2030. There is no charge for your initial consultation.