Get informed, and keep up to date.
By Randy Noblitt, PhD, FACFEI, and Pamela Perskin Noblitt
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has established procedures whereby disabled
claimants can apply for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits. This article addresses the criteria by which this agency makes
determinations and why helping professionals are duty-bound to provide advocacy and
support for their legitimately disabled patients. Furthermore, it provides guidance regarding definitions and processes involved in disability determination. Finally, this article challenges helping professionals to rise to the defense of their disabled clients and patients to provide the support and advocacy consistent with professional ethics.
Clearly, the provision of additional documentation in support of patients’ disability claims represents one more burden on the helping professional. Health care professionals are already being required to do more for less compensation than ever before. However, the cost to the health care provider is less than the cost to the disabled claimant. It is therefore incumbent on the helping professional to establish practice policies that facilitate compliance with Social Security Disability requirements and serving patient needs while minimizing the hardship to the professional and his practice. One way of accomplishing this task would be providing copies of progress notes to patients at the time of service, advising the client to create a file in the event that they must see another health care provider or demonstrate disability. The client should be advised to create a checklist documenting their diagnoses; diagnostic criteria; diagnostic procedures utilized (with dates); pain level; range of motion restrictions; limitations for standing, walking, lifting and carrying; prescribed medications; and, if a psychiatric case, Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF). The incorporation of such a list would be beneficial to both the professional’s documentary process and the patient’s claim. Another consideration would be to spend a few extra moments with patients to determine their potential for needing Social Security Disability benefits and preparing for the process. This can be accomplished by creating a narrative report addressing the onset of symptoms and equating them with the appropriate Medical Listing. The narrative should include an assessment of residual functional capacity: how many hours out of a competitive 8-hour day can the claimant sit, stand/walk; how much can he/she lift/carry; will he/she require unscheduled breaks and for what duration; how often will he/she likely be absent as a consequence of impairments or their treatment, etc. Responding to the demands of the Social Security Administration, managed care, and other mandated agencies is not addressed as part of the professional’s education, but it is as relevant and necessary as meeting any other professional standard of practice. It is in the best interests of helping professions, society, and the disabled for healthcare professionals to become educated in the policy and language of Social Security Disability. If we accept that helping professionals have a primary duty to “first do no harm,” then we must consider the effect of non-compliance with respect to requests for documentation in support of legitimate applications for Social Security benefits or for charging unreasonably high fees for such cooperation. Certainly, to reduce the claimant’s opportunity for a favorable decision and to thus contribute to the claimant’s distress, impoverishment, and denial of adequate medical relief, is to do harm in the most fundamental way. Fully educated and informed helping professionals will hopefully result in greater compliance with the claimant’s requests. Health care providers have a duty to not only support their clients and patients by providing the highest standards of care, but to provide advocacy and social support as well. Disabled people who legitimately receive appropriate benefits will likely be a lesser burden to society and will have the ability to live out their lives in dignity.
References Code of Federal Regulations. (2007). Title 20, Vol. 1, US Government Printing Office. Eckholm, E. (2007). Social Security disability cases are taking longer: Most win social security benefits —if they persist. The New York Times, December 10, 2007. FY 2006 DIODS. (2006). Social Securiaty disability denial rates. Retrieved from http://www.ultimatedisabilityguide. com/ssdi_ssi_denial_rates.html Kelly, F. (2007). A long, painful wait: Too sick to work, many face delays for help from disability judges. Some die waiting. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/251546.html Social Security Administration. (2004). Annual statistical report on the social security disability insurance program, 2003. Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http://www. ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2003/index.htm Social Security Administration. (2007a). Listing of impairments. Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/ AdultListings.htm Social Security Administration. (2007b). Representing claimants. Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http://www.ssa.gov/representation/index.htm Social Security Administration. (2007c). Substantial gainful activity. Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/sga.html Social Security Administration. (2008). What’s new in 2008? Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http:// www.socialsecurity.gov/redbook/eng/whatsnew.htm United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Federal poverty guidelines. Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http://www.workworld.org/ wwwebhelp/poverty_federal.htm United States Department of Labor. (1992). Dictionary of occupational titles. Author. Legislative Counsel of California. (2008). Health and safety code section 123100-123149.5. Official California Legistaltive Information. Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/ displaycode?section=hsc&group=123001- 124000&file=123100-123149.5
The American College of Forensic Examiners International began in 1992; it is still here. Most membership associations rise and fall in less than a decade, but the passion of ACFEI’s founder, Dr. Robert O’Block, and the thousands of reputable people his associations help each year, has fueled continued growth since ACFEI’s inception nearly two decades ago.
As we continually improve our continuing education coursework, Web presence, and printed publications, that growth is bound to continue. The fields in which our members work, study, and fight are not going anywhere anytime soon, and are dynamic and ever evolving. When you join the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, the American Association for Integrative Medicine, the American Psychotherapy Association, or the tried-and-true American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, you will see that we rise above the competition in offering continuing education excellence. Dr. Robert O’Block has created a unique opportunity for you to meet like-minded professionals to network, learn, and teach one another and the world at large.
To learn more, please visit www.acfei.com.
What is it that draws so many—nurses, physicians, soldiers, investigators, government employees, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and a sheer multitude of other honorable professions—into the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute fold? Let me share with you just a few of the numerous reasons so you can better decide for yourself, as thousands wisely did before you:
Accreditation. The American College of Forensic Examiners Institute is an approved provider of continuing education by the following:
Continuing education alignments. In addition to the several accreditations above, we are also proud to inform you that:
To learn more, visit www.acfei.com
By Randy Noblitt, PhD, FACFEI, and Pamela Perskin Noblitt
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has established procedures whereby disabled
claimants can apply for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits. This article addresses the criteria by which this agency makes
determinations and why helping professionals are duty-bound to provide advocacy and
support for their legitimately disabled patients. Furthermore, it provides guidance regarding definitions and processes involved in disability determination. Finally, this article challenges helping professionals to rise to the defense of their disabled clients and patients to provide the support and advocacy consistent with professional ethics.
By Randy Noblitt, PhD, FACFEI, and Pamela Perskin Noblitt
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has established procedures whereby disabled
claimants can apply for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits. This article addresses the criteria by which this agency makes
determinations and why helping professionals are duty-bound to provide advocacy and
support for their legitimately disabled patients. Furthermore, it provides guidance regarding definitions and processes involved in disability determination. Finally, this article challenges helping professionals to rise to the defense of their disabled clients and
patients to provide the support and advocacy consistent with professional ethics.
By Randy Noblitt, PhD, FACFEI, and Pamela Perskin Noblitt
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has established procedures whereby disabled
claimants can apply for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits. This article addresses the criteria by which this agency makes
determinations and why helping professionals are duty-bound to provide advocacy and
support for their legitimately disabled patients. Furthermore, it provides guidance regarding definitions and processes involved in disability determination. Finally, this article challenges helping professionals to rise to the defense of their disabled clients and
patients to provide the support and advocacy consistent with professional ethics.
By Randy Noblitt, PhD, FACFEI, and Pamela Perskin Noblitt
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has established procedures whereby disabled
claimants can apply for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits. This article addresses the criteria by which this agency makes
determinations and why helping professionals are duty-bound to provide advocacy and
support for their legitimately disabled patients. Furthermore, it provides guidance regarding definitions and processes involved in disability determination. Finally, this article challenges helping professionals to rise to the defense of their disabled clients and
patients to provide the support and advocacy consistent with professional ethics.
By Randy Noblitt, PhD, FACFEI, and Pamela Perskin Noblitt
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has established procedures whereby disabled
claimants can apply for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits. This article addresses the criteria by which this agency makes
determinations and why helping professionals are duty-bound to provide advocacy and
support for their legitimately disabled patients. Furthermore, it provides guidance regarding definitions and processes involved in disability determination. Finally, this article challenges helping professionals to rise to the defense of their disabled clients and patients to provide the support and advocacy consistent with professional ethics.
According to the United Nations, 80% of children who die from violence are under age 6, and of those, 40% are infants (Child Welfare Information Gateway [CWIG], 2006; Pinheiro, 2006). The most common cause of violent death for this age group is head injury, followed by blunt force trauma to the child’s body. Although there are many possible sources of traumatic head injury, in 1971 it was suggested that shaking could cause subdural hematomas (and associated cerebral edema), one of the most common types of intracranial injuries seen in deceased infants (Guthkelch, 1971). It was purported that shaking was the mechanism responsible for shearing or tearing the cortical bridging or connecting veins in the brain, which, in turn, caused hematomas. One year later, in 1972, pediatric radiologist John Caffey coined the term “whiplash shaken baby syndrome” to describe a cluster of physical symptoms found in severely traumatized infants. These signs or symptoms included brain injury (i.e., subdural and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages), retinal hemorrhages, and little to no external evidence of head trauma (Caffey, 1972a). Caffey concluded that this type of traumatic intracranial bleeding, similar to that seen in “whiplash” victims, was inflicted by shaking (Caffey, 1972a, 1972b, 1974). Eventually this cluster, or triad, of clinical findings in infants and children came to be known as either “shaken baby triad” or “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS). When additional symptoms consistent with the infant’s head striking a solid or semi-solid surface (such as cranial fractures) were present, the condition was referred to as “shaken-impact” or “shaken-slam.”
According to the United Nations, 80% of children who die from violence are under age 6, and of those, 40% are infants (Child Welfare Information Gateway [CWIG], 2006; Pinheiro, 2006). The most common cause of violent death for this age group is head injury, followed by blunt force trauma to the child’s body. Although there are many possible sources of traumatic head injury, in 1971 it was suggested that shaking could cause subdural hematomas (and associated cerebral edema), one of the most common types of intracranial injuries seen in deceased infants (Guthkelch, 1971). It was purported that shaking was the mechanism responsible for shearing or tearing the cortical bridging or connecting veins in the brain, which, in turn, caused hematomas. One year later, in 1972, pediatric radiologist John Caffey coined the term “whiplash shaken baby syndrome” to describe a cluster of physical symptoms found in severely traumatized infants. These signs or symptoms included brain injury (i.e., subdural and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages), retinal hemorrhages, and little to no external evidence of head trauma (Caffey, 1972a). Caffey concluded that this type of traumatic intracranial bleeding, similar to that seen in “whiplash” victims, was inflicted by shaking (Caffey, 1972a, 1972b, 1974). Eventually this cluster, or triad, of clinical findings in infants and children came to be known as either “shaken baby triad” or “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS). When additional symptoms consistent with the infant’s head striking a solid or semi-solid surface (such as cranial fractures) were present, the condition was referred to as “shaken-impact” or “shaken-slam.”
According to the United Nations, 80% of children who die from violence are under age 6, and of those, 40% are infants (Child Welfare Information Gateway [CWIG], 2006; Pinheiro, 2006). The most common cause of violent death for this age group is head injury, followed by blunt force trauma to the child’s body. Although there are many possible sources of traumatic head injury, in 1971 it was suggested that shaking could cause subdural hematomas (and associated cerebral edema), one of the most common types of intracranial injuries seen in deceased infants (Guthkelch, 1971). It was purported that shaking was the mechanism responsible for shearing or tearing the cortical bridging or connecting veins in the brain, which, in turn, caused hematomas. One year later, in 1972, pediatric radiologist John Caffey coined the term “whiplash shaken baby syndrome” to describe a cluster of physical symptoms found in severely traumatized infants. These signs or symptoms included brain injury (i.e., subdural and/or subarachnoid hemorrhages), retinal hemorrhages, and little to no external evidence of head trauma (Caffey, 1972a). Caffey concluded that this type of traumatic intracranial bleeding, similar to that seen in “whiplash” victims, was inflicted by shaking (Caffey, 1972a, 1972b, 1974). Eventually this cluster, or triad, of clinical findings in infants and children came to be known as either “shaken baby triad” or “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS). When additional symptoms consistent with the infant’s head striking a solid or semi-solid surface (such as cranial fractures) were present, the condition was referred to as “shaken-impact” or “shaken-slam.”
Copyright ©2009
ABFSW,
ACFEI,
and ABCHS. All rights reserved. Dr. Robert O'Block, Founder, CEO, and Publisher.
Managed by Management Executives, Inc. -
Visit our other sites -
Contact