Why is new evidence not allowed after a decision has been made?

[BCrossan]

I don't understand why I cannot submit new evidence in a claim that's been denied. It's not my fault that while living in Ohio and Arkansas I was denied medical so I ended up with very limited documentation. Then I move to PA and boom... qualified for medical and have plenty of documentation after just a couple of months.

And I cannot reapply because my last date of coverage has already lapsed, so as the initial Social Security Rep told me... take this as far as you can because once your done with this case, before I could reapply I would have to work X amount of years to build up more credit and that's not feasible. Granted I can apply for SSI but of course winning this case would be more beneficial as it's literally impossible to survive on SSI alone unless you have someone else to help out.

I was initially denied, got a lawyer and went to ALJ and was denied, again denied with Appeals Council. Moved to PA and got a lawyer here who spoke with my lawyer in AR and was told it was a good appeal (though he was never told why he thought it was a good appeal). Well he filed paperwork a few months back and now calls me today saying he was trying to write some document for the judge and had already requested 2 extensions and was about to apply for a 3rd extension so he can tell the judge he is stepping down as my attorney because he feels the 2 pages he had written in this document were "as he put it... horses**t" and he doesn't want to embarrass himself in front of the judge.

So now I have to try and find another lawyer who does Federal court and is willing to take my case... ugh.

 

[justalayman]

I don't understand why I cannot submit new evidence in a claim that's been denied

you are expected to bring all your evidence to the first trial. If they allowed continued suits simply because somebody found something new, the same issue could end up on court many many times. Courts do not like to rule on the same situation more than once.

It's not my fault that while living in Ohio and Arkansas I was denied medical so I ended up with very limited documentation.

nor is it the other party's fault so why should they be penalized for your problem?

Well he filed paperwork a few months back and now calls me today saying he was trying to write some document for the judge and had already requested 2 extensions and was about to apply for a 3rd extension so he can tell the judge he is stepping down as my attorney because he feels the 2 pages he had written in this document were "as he put it... horses**t" and he doesn't want to embarrass himself in front of the judge.

well, that's pretty unsettling. Why would he write 2 pages of horse****? Was he acting under your directives or was the horse**** all of is making?

 

[BCrossan]

you are expected to bring all your evidence to the first trial. If they allowed continued suits simply because somebody found something new, the same issue could end up on court many many times. Courts do not like to rule on the same situation more than once.

It's new evidence but of the already claimed and existing disabilities. I didn't mean new injuries.

nor is it the other party's fault so why should they be penalized for your problem?

Well I was referencing Medicaid and just makes no sense why in 2 states I don't qualify and 1 state I do. Kind of silly if you ask me. If I qualify in one I should qualify in all since it's government funded.

well, that's pretty unsettling. Why would he write 2 pages of horse****? Was he acting under your directives or was the horse**** all of is making?

From how he explained it, he was trying to come up with whatever he could to counter act some of what he thought was unfair in the ALJ's decision, but he said that the ALJ did a good job at burying me in his decision. Which to be honest is horsedung in my book anyway, because part of my disability is mental related and it was as if he didn't even pick up on the fact that I could barely speak a single word with how freaked out I was being in this room with all the people there. I was literally tripping over my own tongue and barely able to finish a sentence. The lawyer had to keep jumping in and trying to guide me and I still couldn't do it. Lawyer asked me to talk about the problem with my feet and what comes out of my mouth... I don't really have a problem with my feet??!!?? Spent about a half hour crying in the bathroom afterwards cause I was so distraught over the whole thing. Wish I had some Xanax or something to take before going in there.

 

[justalayman]

BCrossan;3334998]It's new evidence but of the already claimed and existing disabilities. I didn't mean new injuries.

I know exactly what you meant and I addressed it with the knowledge it is additional evidence of the same medical issue. My answer remains the same.

Well I was referencing Medicaid and just makes no sense why in 2 states I don't qualify and 1 state I do. Kind of silly if you ask me. If I qualify in one I should qualify in all since it's government funded.

each state has their own right to determine eligibility, within the guidelines from the fed.

From how he explained it, he was trying to come up with whatever he could to counter act some of what he thought was unfair in the ALJ's decision, but he said that the ALJ did a good job at burying me in his decision.

then I would suggest contacting the state bar. If he wrote the report of his own volition, then it would appear you are being penalized for his issues. He wrote the bull**** so if he admits it is all lies, he should be held accountable for that.

 

[BCrossan]

Lets say you have a murder victim in prison, doesn't he have a right to a re-trial if new evidence is found? I'm just saying that when we're talking about something as series as a disability (or plural), I think it's pretty bogus to be left homeless and pennyless when you have a legitimate disability and there should be circumstances that allow for evidence to be admitted if it in fact is part of the original disability.

 

[CdwJava]

Lets say you have a murder victim in prison, doesn't he have a right to a re-trial if new evidence is found?

A murder"victim" would be in he morgue, not prison. So, I assume you meant to write "suspect" or "defendant."

No, new evidence does not mean a new trial. The evidence would have to be sufficiently compelling that it would tend to show factual innocence that the court might order a hearing on the matter and an appeals court may consider setting it for a new trial. However, this is exceedingly rare and the evidence would need to be very compelling and not have been brought up or available for the first trial such as new advances in DNA.

I'm just saying that when we're talking about something as series as a disability (or plural), I think it's pretty bogus to be left homeless and pennyless when you have a legitimate disability and there should be circumstances that allow for evidence to be admitted if it in fact is part of the original disability.

There are appeals processes you could (or should have) availed yourself of. You can consider consulting new legal counsel if you can. MAYBE there's a longshot chance for you ... I can't say.

 

[Onderzoek]

The fact that you saw a doctor in 2015 who said that based on today's exam, you have condition A, B and C today is NOT evidence that you had condition A, B and C yesterday, last week, a year ago, or at the time you were still insured for SSDI.

It is similar to getting an mechanic to state today that your car has a broken windshield, a banged up fender, and a dented door and you want that estimate to be paid by the insurance policy that lapsed two years ago.

So new evidence proves how you are TODAY but does not prove how your condition was yesterday or a year ago. Now you may know how you were a year ago, but the exam done today is not proof of that. It just is not, no matter how much you want it to be. Most medical conditions change over time, people get better and people get worse.

You also said
Granted I can apply for SSI but of course winning this case would be more beneficial as it's literally impossible to survive on SSI alone unless you have someone else to help out.

You are apparently managing to survive now without either working, or SSDI or SSI so it is obviously possible to survive and with SSI, your life may be slightly improved. It may not be a great life, but many many people are grateful for the life they get with SSI since they have no other options. And how do you even know if your SSDI is higher than SSI? It could be less.

I do understand that you probably won't agree with any of what I am saying, but SSA is telling you the same thing.

 

[FlyingRon]

I suspect you are misunderstanding how these things work. Once a hearing officer makes a decision, that proceeding is over. There's NOTHING you can do to "reopen" it.
If you feel an error of law was made (rather than you just not filing sufficient evidence to support your claim) you can appeal (if made timely) to the appeals council and then to federal court.
It's doubtful that there is an appealable error here.

You may need to refile with the new evidence.

This is really not the place to be going at it pro se. There are attorney's that specialize in this stuff.

 

[BCrossan]

I do get what all your saying for the most part. But yea I have to disagree with the point of things that were wrong with then THEN are somehow different then now and thats why its not allowed. I have the same exact problems... no better... no worse. Appreciate all the input though. Take care.

 

[Onderzoek]

I do get what all your saying for the most part. But yea I have to disagree with the point of things that were wrong with then THEN are somehow different then now and thats why its not allowed. I have the same exact problems... no better... no worse. Appreciate all the input though. Take care.

Your memory is not sufficient evidence. If I take a picture of a broken window today, that is not evidence that the window was broken last year. It might have been broken last year. It might have been broken yesterday. Today's photo is evidence of today; any other conclusion is a best guess and SSA decisions are not based on guesses. Your guess may be correct, but it doesn't meet the evidence standard required.