About 4,000 disability claims that were partially or fully rejected in Queens by one of five specific administrative law judges will likely have an opportunity to have their case heard, following a federal appellate panel's findings indicating that the judges were systematically unfair. ![gavel41.jpg]()
Los Angeles Social Security Disability Insurance Attorney Vincent Howard of HOWARD LAW knows that this case will only involve a small portion of the overall number of claimants rejected since 1998. However, the timing of the recent U.S. District Court's decision regarding the Queens' cases is interesting because it follows more recent claims by a number of Social Security Administrative judges who said they've been forced to decide cases in favor of claimants due to time constraints.
Further, it just goes to show how much power these judges have in the success or failure of your claim. Some will inevitably be harsher in their assessment than others. You can't choose the judge to whom your case will be assigned, but with the help of an experienced SSDI claims attorney - someone who is familiar with each of the area judges and their style of ruling - you can have the peace of mind of knowing that your case is in good hands and your rights will be protected.
This case out of New York started with eight claimants whose disability appeals were denied by a group of five administrative law judges all based out of the same office. It was later revealed that this particular office had a denial rate that was twice as high as the denial rate in nearby Brooklyn. In the case of one judge, her denial rate was 90 percent.
The situation originally started out as a complaint directed to the administration's then-director, Michael Astrue. However, it later morphed into a class action lawsuit, which includes thousands of individuals who claims were at least partially rejected by one of these five between 2008 and present.
These claimants weren't originally taken seriously. Now, nearly a dozen years after filing that first complaint, a federal judge has given preliminary approval for a settlement agreement in favor of those who say they hit a "brick wall of bias" in their quest for a fair disability hearing.
These individuals were suffering from severe, debilitating conditions that rendered them unable to work. They were seeking desperately-needed financial assistance - which they had paid into during their years of working. And these judges, reportedly, would routinely reduce claimants to tears during a battery of harsh questioning, insults and brusque, unexplained dismissals.
Many of those who were denied were immigrants.
The federal appellate panel called one judge downright combative, adding that the kinds of tactics employed by these judges were not only unhelpful, they actually harmed cases by impeding the process of seeking the truth.
One of those judges has since been replaced.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the other four would be allowed to stay, but would be required to undergo retraining. And for the next two years, each decision they made would be closely monitored and reviewed.
The administration wouldn't have to admit any wrongdoing, but those whose claims were denied within the time frame established by those judges named would be allowed another hearing, this time before a different judge.
A final decision on the matter will be handed down July 24, 2013.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Los Angeles Social Security Disability Insurance Attorney Vincent Howard of HOWARD LAW knows that this case will only involve a small portion of the overall number of claimants rejected since 1998. However, the timing of the recent U.S. District Court's decision regarding the Queens' cases is interesting because it follows more recent claims by a number of Social Security Administrative judges who said they've been forced to decide cases in favor of claimants due to time constraints.
Further, it just goes to show how much power these judges have in the success or failure of your claim. Some will inevitably be harsher in their assessment than others. You can't choose the judge to whom your case will be assigned, but with the help of an experienced SSDI claims attorney - someone who is familiar with each of the area judges and their style of ruling - you can have the peace of mind of knowing that your case is in good hands and your rights will be protected.
This case out of New York started with eight claimants whose disability appeals were denied by a group of five administrative law judges all based out of the same office. It was later revealed that this particular office had a denial rate that was twice as high as the denial rate in nearby Brooklyn. In the case of one judge, her denial rate was 90 percent.
The situation originally started out as a complaint directed to the administration's then-director, Michael Astrue. However, it later morphed into a class action lawsuit, which includes thousands of individuals who claims were at least partially rejected by one of these five between 2008 and present.
These claimants weren't originally taken seriously. Now, nearly a dozen years after filing that first complaint, a federal judge has given preliminary approval for a settlement agreement in favor of those who say they hit a "brick wall of bias" in their quest for a fair disability hearing.
These individuals were suffering from severe, debilitating conditions that rendered them unable to work. They were seeking desperately-needed financial assistance - which they had paid into during their years of working. And these judges, reportedly, would routinely reduce claimants to tears during a battery of harsh questioning, insults and brusque, unexplained dismissals.
Many of those who were denied were immigrants.
The federal appellate panel called one judge downright combative, adding that the kinds of tactics employed by these judges were not only unhelpful, they actually harmed cases by impeding the process of seeking the truth.
One of those judges has since been replaced.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the other four would be allowed to stay, but would be required to undergo retraining. And for the next two years, each decision they made would be closely monitored and reviewed.
The administration wouldn't have to admit any wrongdoing, but those whose claims were denied within the time frame established by those judges named would be allowed another hearing, this time before a different judge.
A final decision on the matter will be handed down July 24, 2013.