Had the worst week ever with a SSA denial appeal

I mean, I thought we had a solid case for this client in Fresno. Medical records were all there, two doctor statements, the whole deal. Then the judge denied her in like 20 minutes flat, saying her condition 'didn't meet the listing.' Has anyone else had a hearing that just went totally sideways even when you thought you had everything?

3 comments

3 Comments

the_alice12d ago

Judge Smith in Fresno denied two of my cases in under 15 minutes last month where I had similar evidence and I'd say he was totally wrong both times. Those quick denials usually mean the judge barely looked at the file, not that they found some hidden legal reason, because they often quote boilerplate language about listings without actually addressing the doctor opinions you submitted. The whole "didn't meet the listing" line is a cop out when the real test is whether the combined limitations prevent all work, not just checking boxes on one specific listing.

grantf7312d ago

Hang on, I gotta push back a little here. You're saying the case was solid but maybe the judge saw something you didn't, like gaps in how the medical evidence actually proved she couldn't do any kind of work, not just her current job. SSA denials are brutal but sometimes it's less about having lots of records and more about having the right records that directly tie her symptoms to specific work limitations. I've seen attorneys load up on doctor statements that just say "she's in pain" without any functional assessment, which a judge can dismiss in two minutes. Maybe the judge was right to say the listing wasn't met if the evidence didn't show her condition equals one of those specific, strict criteria they have. It sucks to lose a case you believed in but sometimes a quick denial means the judge actually read the file and found a real legal reason to say no, not just being mean.

susan13012d ago

Oh wow, yeah you're totally onto something there. I think people forget that Social Security judges aren't just making stuff up half the time, they're actually following a really strict checklist of rules. Like if your medical records don't show your condition meeting every single detail of a listing? The judge has to deny it by law, even if they feel bad about it. I've seen clients come in with tons of records saying they have chronic pain but nobody bothered to get a doctor to fill out a simple form saying "this person can't sit for more than 30 minutes at a time." Without that functional piece, the judge can just say the evidence doesn't match any listing. It's not mean, it's just how the system is built. And honestly sometimes a quick denial is better than waiting two years for a hearing that ends the same way, at least you can start over with better proof sooner.