You aren’t prohibited from returning to work after being on Social Security Disability
Today’s post comes from guest author Barbara Tilker from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.
Many of the people that I’ve spoken to over the years are under the impression that once you get Social Security Disability (SSD) you have to remain on benefits forever and can never go back to work. This is a common misconception, and one that prevents many people from receiving benefits they would otherwise be entitled to.
While you do not have to be on SSD forever, you do have to be out of work for at least twelve (12) consecutive months. However, once you’ve satisfied this durational requirement, you can return to work and receive SSD for a portion of the time that you were unable to work – Social Security doesn’t pay disability benefits for the first five (5) full months you’re out of work.
We have many clients who receive excellent medical care and have their medical condition improve and return to work. That’s great, and it’s something we love to see. SSD is there for you during the time that you’re unable to work.
…the Social Security Administration…even lets you work for a limited period of time before stopping your benefits.
Social Security also likes it when you return to work, and they have several different programs that help you get back to work, even if it’s a different sort of work than what you were doing before you became disabled. I’ll cover these programs in more detail in a later post, but for now, you should know that the Social Security Administration makes it possible for you to get vocational rehabilitation and retraining for free, and even lets you work for a limited period of time before stopping your benefits.
Once you know that you’ll be out of work for at least 12 months, contact our office to discuss filing a claim, even if you plan to return to work in the future. Because of the fact that you can lose benefits if you wait too long to apply (something I discussed here) you shouldn’t delay filing for benefits just because you plan to go back to work in the future.
Workers have flooded North Dakota to work in the booming oil industry.
Today’s post comes from guest author Jay Causey from Causey Law Firm.
A recent article in the New York Times (An Oil Boom Takes a Toll on Health Care, January 28, 2013) recounted the growing burden on North Dakota hospitals because of on-the-job injuries to workers who have flooded that state to work in the booming oil industry. Apparently North Dakota hospitals are swimming in debt from unpaid bills because, as the article by John Eligon states, “many of the new patients are transient men without health insurance or a permanent address in the area.”
“Swamped by uninsured laborers flocking to dangerous jobs in the oil industry, the hospitals here in the North Dakota oil patch are sinking under skyrocketing debt, a flood of gruesome injuries and bloated business costs from the inflated economy.” – John Eligon, New York Times
Mr. Eligon goes on to discuss actions by the governor and state legislature to increase medical training and medical facilities in North Dakota, and to obtain increased Medicaid financing for the state’s rural hospitals. Not only are medical facilities groaning from the increase of gruesome injuries associated with highly dangerous work environments, Mr. Eligon recounts the health issues that arise from the cramped housing scenarios in the work camps that have sprung up near the oil fields. This includes a significant increase in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
The North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance site includes its catchy motto – “Putting Safety to Work.”
However, nowhere in Mr. Eligon’s article is there any mention of, or reference to, North Dakota’s workers compensation system which would seemingly provide the principal coverage for the injuries and conditions that are the subject of his article. Is the NYT oblivious to the fact of coverage for industrial injuries and conditions under each state’s workers compensation law? Or are workers injured in the new booming oil economy of North Dakota somehow being denied coverage under that state’s system, or being engineered out of coverage by the terms of their employment with the oil companies? It seems that a minimal inquiry, at least, on these points was owed by the NYT in its article.
Photo credit: nestor galina / Foter.com / CC BY
Connecticut’s workers compensation law does not currently cover mental injuries which do not stem from a physical injury.
Today’s post comes from guest author Tom Domer from The Domer Law Firm.
Following the Connecticut school shootings, unions representing police and firefighters and school employees have held discussions about laws to expand situations under which worker’s comp benefits would be available for mental health issues. Connecticut worker’s compensation law does not provide for “Mental-Mental” claims, which are claims for psychological disabilities that do not stem from an original physical injury. Police officers, firefighters, and school officials do not meet the requirements of Connecticut’s Statute for psychological counseling or time lost benefits in the event they are unable to work because of psychological disability in the wake of the shootings.
Since the mid-1970s Wisconsin has recognized non-traumatic mental injury (“Mental-Mental”) in worker’s compensation. Before 1974, compensable mental injuries were limited to post-traumatic injuries, mental disorders occurring after and due to a physical accident. The statute then defined injury as “mental or physical harm to an employee caused by accident.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court set a new “Extraordinary Stress” standard for compensability, indicating if the mental injury resulted from situation of greater dimensions than the day to day stress, which all employees must experience, benefits and medical expenses could be paid. Continue reading