|
All Just simply about DivorceLower Back complaints and the SSDIB Claimant
by:
Tim Moore
Just simply about one week ago to the day, I black-and-blue my lower back. And although I am now fully on the road to recovery, I can't help but wonder what it would-be be like to be burdened
with shrewish body part
back pain indefinitely as is the case with many an handicap claimants.
It would-be be awful without a doubt. But here are several specific things my domestic partner (also a former DDS examiner and a current D.O. CR) and I discussed: light jobs would-be be difficult because handling any figure of weight, let alone, say, 20 pounds, would-be aggravate a back problem. I rediscovered this reality yesterday as I, in a limited fashion, tried to help my better half with
groceries. The simple weight of a gallon jug of milk was enough to do me wince. How simply about a inactive
job? Well, the problem with inactive
jobs has to do with...being sedentary.
As many an claimants with chronic lower body part
pain wish attest, being in a sitting
position can become really uncomfortable even as after a few minutes. But even as "sedentary jobs" are not entirely sedentary. Most inactive
activity still involves having to get up and down from a sitting
position dozens of times during the course of a day. And this can obviouly present a problem for causal agency with lower body part
pain. And, of course, there are the psychological aspects of having consecutive pain and discomfort; chief among these is the effect that consecutive pain has on one's ability
to maintain attention and concentration. And, of course, pain makes have a nasty effect on one's disposition.
Now, in the context of handicap claims adjudication, why do I even as bother mentioning this kind of stuff? Just for this reason: examiners, their supervisors, and the medical consultants with whom handicap examiners activity all too often slap decisions on cases without allowing claimants reasonable consideration with respect to their pain. This is not a trivial issue as the societal safety administration has been sued a number of times over its failure to recognize claimants' limitations due to pain.
Why do the "functionaries", or cogs of the system, fail to recognize the role that pain plays in a claimant's functional limitations?
Well, in the case of examiners, it may have a little to do with age. Most examiners tend to be younger individuals (twenties and thirties), i.e. folk who have ne'er
had to deal with a disabling illness, such as chronic
disc disease. It's an unfortunate reality of human existence that folk are often unable to sympathise with causal agency else's pain if we have not intimate thing
similar ourselves.
In the case of the docs, that is the physicans who serve as unit medical consultants in a state's DDS (disability determination services), the blinders they wear may have much to do with the nature of their work. Basically, "disability docs" sit in an office all day long, reading files and writeups that have been written by handicap examiners. After a doc has finished reading a file, he or she wish write an RFC (residual functional capacity
form) that may or may not agree with what an examiner has "conjured". At any one time, a DDS medical authority
may have dozens of cases in his office which need reviewing. But in NONE, Utterly
NONE, of that time wish one of these doctors ever see, touch, or feel one of the claimants that they are writing an RFC for. Can you do out the image that I'm drawing. These doctors render VERDICTS on cases, in a way that is really impersonal, removed, bureaucratic, and even as automated. And with the number of cases that move across their desks, it's hardly a wonder that MOST cases are given a medium RFC, or residual functional capacity rating.
What is a medium RFC? It means several things, but in terms of exertional limitations, it means that a applicant is still expected to be able to, in the course of a workday, lift 50 lbs from time to time and 25 lbs frequently. As an examiner, I saw medium RFCs given to claimants who, doubtless, would-be have difficulty lifting even as 20 lbs once, let alone 50 lbs occasionally.
This, of course, qualifies as a gripe that I hold against the SSA system. However, I believe it is altogether a legitimate one concerning a legitimate problem. How do you address the problem?
Here's a novel resolution that strength
have an immediate impact on how DDS medical consultants rate the limitations of claimants: require them all to support fifty pound dumbbells beside their desks and each time they consider handing out a medium rfc, require them to lift it simply once. Each time they perform this action and feel the discomfort that comes from lifting fifty pounds, they can then consider the effect this figure of weight strength
have on a applicant with chronic lower back pain. And, simply perhaps, their ratings of cases strength
begin to approach a state closer to
reality. Because, presently, it is doubtful, at best, that many an of these doctors have any real clue as to what fifty pounds actually is, or feels like.
Just simply about the author:
The author of this article is Timothy Moore, who, in addition to being a former food stamp caseworker, health care
welfare worker
and AFDC caseworker, is a former handicap claims examiner. He publishes information at Social Safety Handicap Tips and Secrets which features a helpful and informative Social Safety Handicap faq
Circulated by Article Emporium
| |
