You can get Social Security disability benefits if there is evidence of drug and alcohol abuse--it's just harder

Chronic drug and alcohol abuse can hurt if not kill a Social Security disability case.  Evidence of either, however, is not the death knell to a case.  The key is to show the drug or alcohol abuse was not a "material factor" contributing to the disability.  In other words, you need to show disability wasn't caused by the drug or alcohol abuse.

Usually people drink or do drugs to "self-medicate" because they were abused (usually sexually) as a child.  At least this is what I have observed in the hundreds of cases I've handled.  Consequently, it is important to explain what happened.  Although not excusing the behavior it can show the claimant is a troubled soul trying to ease their pain.  And if they get help and get better then the evidence of past abuse can be overcome.

I usually suggest an alternate payee (someone to handle the disability) to the judge as a way of 1) protecting the claimant against temptation and 2) reassuring the judge that the money won't go towards bad habits but towards supporting the claimant.

 

These are tough cases, but I've won enough of them to know it can be done.

Social Security disability hearings can hinge on "little things" #SSA

I've handled a few hundred Social Security disability hearings, and all of them are different and the same. Each person has their own unique story, but there are common threads that are woven throughout the tapestry of a good case.

 First, a good case has solid evidence that backs up the claimants complaints.  This is in the form of medical evidence and testimonial evidence.

 

Second, if subjective complaints and objective evidence (medical records) line up, then a claimant is usually deemed "credible." This means the claimant is believable.  Veracity is one part of it, but it is more about the complaints, the evidence, and the actual symptoms being in sync.

 

Third, the "little things" (anecdotes) line up with the evidence and claimant's story. For example, if a claimant sits on a bench in the shower and can't bend over to tie his or her shoes, then that claimant cannot meet the demands of a job where they need to stand. If the only jobs that person can do require standing, then that claimant is likely disabled.

 

There are no silver bullets in disability cases, but I continue to be amazed at how cases are made or lost on seemingly "little things" that end up looming large because they are reliable indicia.

Personal Injury cases and electronic data

 

Social Security Disability: Importance of client

 

Lawyers must use themes in Social Security disability cases

 

In North Carolina (and every other state), insurance companies what to screw you when you have a car wreck claim

 

Technology won't save us, but it can help us (think automation)

Technology cannot solve all our problems. I say that frequently because it's true. Technology provides wonderful tools to enhance what we are already doing by making us more efficient. It makes things faster. Rather, the things that are laborious and do not involve higher level thinking are perfect to be influenced by technology, specifically, automation. But what is automation?

Automation is "the use of machines or technology to perform simple human tasks without much human intervention."  Where we will see the benefits the most are in AI. Think fillable forms. You gather necessary information and have it populated in routine forms. 

Automation isn't new. Some of the greatest technological breakthroughs have been seemingly simple improvements such as the assembly line invented by Henry Ford. Ford installed it on December 1, 1913. It allowed for the mass production of automobiles. As a result, people all over America bought cars. Eventually the interstate highway system grew up after World War II. And now we can't imagine life without driving.

Automation through AI will be similar because it will allow us to process work faster especially in the legal field (personal injury,  M&A, workers comp, VA, Social Security disability, and wills and estates are all examples of practice areas that will benefit). We already see its benefits with forms that auto-populate, faster online systems, and self-guided systems. 

The downside for the American labor market is it could in theory take away jobs. Arguably, it will create jobs, too. Ultimately, I think it will benefit us by creating more opportunities and careers we haven't even imagined yet. 

It's nothing to be afraid of like some Twilight Zone episode.

But technology won't think for us. Rather, it shouldn't. We should still think for ourselves. In this way, technology won't solve all our problems. But it can greatly benefit it. Those who learn to use technology such as automation to enhancer their productivity will be the ones who do well in modern day America--especially in the legal field. 

People were so offended by the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics

 

Never Trust a Male Lawyer who Dyes his Hair

 

Lawyer Doddle—thoughts on class action lawyers (data breach)

Collect your $50 while lawyers make millions. 

Should judges post on social media?

No one wants a judge who is a partisan hack. I read The Appeal by John Grisham, which painted an unflattering portrait of the way appellate judges are selected and how they decide. It makes you think about what you want in a judge. The question I wonder about is: what should judges post on social media? Or should they post anything at all?

 

Judges are people. Although black robes are meant to convey majesty, that is more about the court and the power of the court as an institution. The judge an agent of that institution and the embodiment of it.

Some states elect their judges. Some states appoint their judges. In North Carolina, we elect judges. It used to be non-partisan, which was a little silly. You knew where everyone stood, but it allowed judges to have at least a little removal from politics. Not anymore.

The North Carolina General Assembly made the elections partisan after about two decades of not listing the judge’s party. This raises all kinds of questions about judges who hold certain political philosophies and how they might rule.

For example, many Republican judges come from the DA’s office. Do you want a judge who worked for the DA’s office if you are a criminal defense lawyer? Probably not. I suppose it depends on the judge. Conversely, if you are a victim of crime, do you want a judge who was a long-time criminal defense lawyer and a Democrat?

And what if you are a plaintiff’s attorney in a personal injury lawsuit, and your case goes in front of a Republican judge who worked in insurance defense his or her whole career? You may not want this judge.

The two-party divide has always existed, so, in theory, this problem has always been present. You simply learned how judges leaned and you “judge shopped” accordingly.

Lately I’ve noticed judges showing up in pictures on social media at political events for North Carolina Court of Appeals and North Carolina Supreme Court candidates and incumbents. In theory, these appellate courts could rule on opinions written by the judges attending their events and contributing to their campaigns.

It raises the question: is it proper for a judge to appear on social media in these kinds of pictures? What about appearing in pictures with candidates for various offices? Or pictures with children of major politicians? For example, what if your judge appeared with Donald Trump, Jr. in a picture at a political event? How would you feel about that judge? I suppose it depends on how you want the judge to rule, doesn’t it? If you were a Democrat, not so good. How would you feel if your judge appeared with Hunter Biden? If you were a Republican, not so good.

I don’t have the answers, but I do believe:

1. Judges should keep their social media to a minimum and keep their points of view offline. I suppose the counter argument for that is it is better to see how they really think and vote accordingly;

2. Judges should not be photographed with appellate judges who may rule on their cases;

3. Judges should not voice hyper-partisan opinions online; and

4. Judges should not voice strong opinions online about issues that may give people pause as to the judge’s judgment, for lack of a better word.

One thing that troubles me is how so many judges are drawn from the DA’s office. How is a judge who comes from the DA’s office qualified to hear anything but criminal cases? Wouldn’t you want a judge who understood criminal law and civil law? Those are questions for another day.

I’m not sure what judges should do about social media, but I do believe they should at least appear to not be a partisan hack. Right now, some try harder than others. 

But it raises the question: if judges conduct themselves as political animals, can you go after them like any other political candidate? I think you can. And you should.