Blog Home

A Race to the Bottom for National Social Security Disability Firms
Posted by: Robert Kinney
December 30, 2011
Topic: A Race to the Bottom for National Social Security Disability Firms

You?ve probably seen the commercials on television. An attorney promising to represent ?you? appeal a social security disability denial.  They prey on your fear of the unknown and your inability to navigate the federal government?s social security rules.  A toll free number flashes across the screen for a national law firm that represents claimant?s around the country.

Should you call?

The answer is an unequivocal ?NO!?

National law firms market share has steadily grown since 2004, when the social security administrative agency and Congress relaxed rules governing representation, making it easier for nonlawyer advocates to get paid.  National law firms quickly hired lower-paid nonlawyers to handle cases, ramped up advertising and began processing a far greater number of clients.  While the advertising budget increased, these firms cut services to their clients.

To understand the rise of national law firms, you have to understand the economics.  Initial applications for disability benefits usually are decided in state agencies that work with the Social Security Administration.  Applicants are required to provide medical records establishing that they are unlikely to be able to work for at least a year, or that their health problems are terminal.  If denied at the state level, applicants can request a hearing before an administrative law judge.  Often, that is the point at which lawyers get involved.  If the appeal is successful, the applicant is entitled to ?back pay? which is disability payments dating to the time of the injury or disability.  Lawyers can collect 25% of that award, up to $6,000.     

National law firms use the economies of scale to makes millions of dollars at the expense of their clients.  A Wall Street Journal article detailed the rise of some of the largest law firms specializing in social security claims in a December 22, 2011 article entitled ?Two Lawyers Strike Gold in U.S. Disability System.?  I have provided a link below.  The numbers are staggering.

For social security clients in Oregon, the problem with national law firms is that they often do not have local advocates to attend hearings.  I often speak with potential clients who have already signed up with national law firms, that are referred to me because the law firm does not have any employees in Oregon.  Unfortunately, I can not represent many of these claimant?s because the national law firm puts a lien on the attorney fee.  Meaning that even if we were successful in the appeal, I may not get an attorney fee.

If you, or someone you know, lives in the Portland or Astoria area and has had a social security claim denied please call our offices.  Our firm specializes at appealing social security disability denials and we provide personalized service to all of our clients.  

Even if you live outside our area, you can still call our offices.  We would be happy to recommend an Oregon lawyer in your area that can competently handle your claim at all stages of the appeal process.  

Permalink

The Court of Appeals concludes short term disability payments cannot be offset against temporary disability benefits.
Posted by: Robert Kinney
January 19, 2011
Topic: Legal Updates

The Oregon Court of Appeals issued a decision that will help injured workers who receive both short term disability (STD) payments and temporary partial disability (TPD) payments.  In Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Martinez 239 Or App 224 (December 1, 2010) the court affirmed the Board's order in Anita M. Martinez, 60 Van Natta 1937 (2008) which had held that a carrier was not authorized to offset claimant's STD payments against her TPD benefits because STD payments neither constituted "wages" nor "sick leave."

For those injured workers who are suddenly unable to work, STD payments and TPD benefits are often the only means to stay afloat financially while trying to get back to work.  By not allowing workers' compensation insurance companies to offset TPD benefits when injured workers are receiving STD payments the Court of Appeals allowed injured workers to receive all the benefits they are entitled to when injured.

If you have a question about temporary partial disability payments, or what benefits you may be entitled to when you are injured, please call Martin L. Alvey P.C.

Permalink

The Supreme Court defines the meaning of arthritis in Hopkins.
Posted by: Robert Kinney
January 18, 2011
Topic: Legal Updates

Injured workers call into our office frequently with questions about their ?combined condition? denial.  A combined condition denial is often confusing for injured workers, who have their workers' compensation benefits suddenly cut off because insurance companies decide that the major cause of their condition is no longer (or never was) an otherwise compensable injury, but instead caused in major part by a ?preexisting condition.?  The recent Oregon Supreme Court decision in Hopkins v. SAIF, 349 OR 348 (December 9, 2010), may have made things that much tougher for injured workers by concluding that the legislature did not limit the term ?arthritis? to a particular form of ?arthritis.?

In Hopkins, the Supreme Court held that, in defining a ?preexisting condition,? the legislature intended the term ?arthritis? to mean the inflammation of one or more joints, due to infectious, metabolic, or constitutional causes, and resulting in breakdown, degeneration, or structural change.  In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court disagreed with claimant's argument that ?arthritis? should be limited to inflammation of moveable (or ?freely articulating?) joints.  With this definition of arthritis, the Supreme Court went on to affirm the Board?s conclusion that Ms. Hopkins had preexisting arthritis.  

If you are an injured worker and have received a denial, whether it is for a combined condition or otherwise, please call Martin L. Alvey P.C. to discuss your claim.

Permalink