|
| |
SOCIAL SECURITY CASES
Attorney Schneider has successfully represented hundreds of people in Social
Security and SSI appeals in Clinton, Essex, and Franklin Counties. We do not
charge anything unless you win. We understand the
law and know what facts you need to prove to win. It is best to use a licensed
attorney, who can do all parts of the appeal, to represent you.
If you do win, our firm is awarded 25% of retroactive award (with a maximum
of $6,000). The Social Security Administration will pay us directly. Because we
only get paid if you win, we always try hard to win for you.
We know the standards that the Judges use in determining whether to grant
benefits. Our firm has won Social Security and SSI cases in federal court
appeals (which we do without charge to you if the Administrative Law Judge rules
against you) and have over 25 years of experience with the law. You can read
some of Mr. Schneider's winning cases by clicking on the following links:
Metz v. Commissioner; Lunan v. Commissioner; Wood v. Commissioner;
Cruz v. Commissioner; Sweet v. Commissioner; Butler v.
Commissioner; and Bayne v. Commissioner.
Also, our office has worked with almost all primary care doctors and clinics
(and many specialists) in the North Country. An important part of winning Social
Security cases is getting good reports and letters from the treating doctors. As
part of every case, we ask the treating doctor for an opinion whether a Social
Security Disability or SSI claimant is able to perform full time work on a
sustained basis. If your own doctor thinks that you can work, then it is very
difficult to win on appeal. On the other hand, if your own doctor will state
that you cannot work because of a medical (or psychological) impairment, you
have a very good chance of winning your appeal hearing.
Mark has been a prolific Social Security/SSI
practitioner in the federal courts. He has won numerous appeals in
the Northern District of New York. He also has won some important
Second Circuit Social Security cases:
Burger v. Astrue,
282 Fed.Appx. 883 (2d Cir. 2010), reversed the Northern
District of New York, which upheld the ALJ’s decision that claimant’s
failure to seek medical treatment during the relevant disability period
fatally undermined her claim for disability. The Second Circuit found
that a failure to seek medical treatment, when accompanied by the
reasonable explanation of inability to afford treatment, obliges the ALJ
to take necessary steps to develop the factual record.
Kohler v. Astrue
, 546 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2008), reversed the Northern District of New
York, which upheld the ALJ’s decision that claimant did not have a
disability. The Second Circuit, in an opinion by then-Judge Sonja Sotomayor,
found that the ALJ failed to adequately assess and document claimant’s
degree of functional limitation from her condition. It held that the ALJ had
to fully address the claimant’s mental impairments. Justice Sotomayor also
held that extra weight should be given to the opinion of a nurse
practitioner because of limited access to doctors in the north country of
New York.
J. Genier v. Astrue,
298 Fed.Appx. 105 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit that the subsequent
diagnosis of multiple sclerosis should be considered by the ALJ in assessing
claimant’s credibility. The ALJ had determined that there was no objective basis
for her expressed pain and limitations.
Moran v. Astrue,
569 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009). The Second Circuit reversed because the ALJ did
not fulfill his affirmative obligation to assist the unrepresented claimant to
fully develop the medical record.
Giddings v. Astrue,
333 Fed.Appx. 649 (2d Cir. 2009), the Second Circuit held that the ALJ erred
in discounting the testimony of the claimant. It also held that the ALJ’s
determination that claimant could do light work was not supported by substantial
evidence.
C. Genier v. Astrue,
606 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010), the Second Circuit
held that the ALJ failed to consider the evidence in discrediting the testimony
of the claimant. It held: "The [ALJ] decision, however, was based on so
serious a misunderstanding of Genier's statements that it cannot be deemed to
have complied with the requirement that they be taken into account."
|