the therapist’s name had triggered the investigation

S.A.’s story is far from unique. Since 2003, the CDI unit for Oakland, CA, has
investigated at least twenty-nine Cambodian disability benefits applicants, all
refugees at one point treated by S.A.’s therapist.2 In at least twenty-four of
these cases, no examining doctors had diagnosed malingering; rather, the
therapist’s name had triggered the investigation. These investigations led to a
rejection at the initial application stage, though they rarely accused the
applicant of fraud were often dismissed years later at the appeal stage. The
pattern of these investigations reveal broad, institutional flaws in Social
Security’s programs and policies, which severely prejudice the claims of these
refugee applicants and other vulnerable classes.

unow@example.com wrote in
news:v20o64l4e63l1j3ptav7ne093hcpcqotte@4ax.com:

> S.A.’s story is far from unique. Since 2003, the CDI unit for Oakland,
> CA, has investigated at least twenty-nine Cambodian disability
> benefits applicants, all refugees at one point treated by S.A.’s
> therapist.2 In at least twenty-four of these cases, no examining

SSDI is for people who pay into the system. Not refugees. If some doctor
has been helping them get benefits they weren't entitled to, then yes his
name should be an automatic trigger for fraud.

However, he should have been prosecuted for the fraud himself and had his
license to practice yanked.

> doctors had diagnosed malingering; rather, the therapist’s name had
> triggered the investigation. These investigations led to a rejection
> at the initial application stage, though they rarely accused the

The list of people I know who weren't rejected at the initial application
is very small. I know the official numbers indicate a larger approval, but
most I know were rejected at initial. This isn't unusual.

> applicant of fraud were often dismissed years later at the appeal
> stage. The pattern of these investigations reveal broad, institutional
> flaws in Social Security’s programs and policies, which severely
> prejudice the claims of these refugee applicants and other vulnerable
> classes.

No kidding. If refugees can just file and get SSDI when they never paid
into the system, there is a HUGE problem. These cases should never get
accepted.

"Doc" <doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD06B306D0EDDoc530@216.168.3.44...
> unow@example.com wrote in
> news:v20o64l4e63l1j3ptav7ne093hcpcqotte@4ax.com:
>
>> S.A.'s story is far from unique. Since 2003, the CDI unit for Oakland,
>> CA, has investigated at least twenty-nine Cambodian disability
>> benefits applicants, all refugees at one point treated by S.A.'s
>> therapist.2 In at least twenty-four of these cases, no examining
>
> SSDI is for people who pay into the system. Not refugees. If some doctor
> has been helping them get benefits they weren't entitled to, then yes his
> name should be an automatic trigger for fraud.
>
> However, he should have been prosecuted for the fraud himself and had his
> license to practice yanked.
>
>> doctors had diagnosed malingering; rather, the therapist's name had
>> triggered the investigation. These investigations led to a rejection
>> at the initial application stage, though they rarely accused the
>
> The list of people I know who weren't rejected at the initial application
> is very small. I know the official numbers indicate a larger approval,
> but
> most I know were rejected at initial. This isn't unusual.
>
>> applicant of fraud were often dismissed years later at the appeal
>> stage. The pattern of these investigations reveal broad, institutional
>> flaws in Social Security's programs and policies, which severely
>> prejudice the claims of these refugee applicants and other vulnerable
>> classes.
>
> No kidding. If refugees can just file and get SSDI when they never paid
> into the system, there is a HUGE problem. These cases should never get
> accepted.
>
Once again people are confusing an insurance payment with a charity program

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:32:06 -0500, in alt.social-security-disability Doc
<doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote:

>SSDI is for people who pay into the system. Not refugees. If some doctor
>has been helping them get benefits they weren't entitled to, then yes his
>name should be an automatic trigger for fraud.
>
>However, he should have been prosecuted for the fraud himself and had his
>license to practice yanked.


You are very ignorant.. please go to Iraq.

SSA is what people pay in to. You can get SSI at the age of 18. It is
worthless jackasses like you who sen the khmer rouge in to terrorize the
cambodians..


On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:32:06 -0500, in alt.social-security-disability Doc
<doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote:

>unow@example.com wrote in
>news:v20o64l4e63l1j3ptav7ne093hcpcqotte@4ax.com :
>
>> S.A.’s story is far from unique. Since 2003, the CDI unit for Oakland,
>> CA, has investigated at least twenty-nine Cambodian disability
>> benefits applicants, all refugees at one point treated by S.A.’s
>> therapist.2 In at least twenty-four of these cases, no examining
>
>SSDI is for people who pay into the system. Not refugees. If some doctor
>has been helping them get benefits they weren't entitled to, then yes his
>name should be an automatic trigger for fraud.
>
>However, he should have been prosecuted for the fraud himself and had his
>license to practice yanked.
>
>> doctors had diagnosed malingering; rather, the therapist’s name had
>> triggered the investigation. These investigations led to a rejection
>> at the initial application stage, though they rarely accused the
>
>The list of people I know who weren't rejected at the initial application
>is very small. I know the official numbers indicate a larger approval, but
>most I know were rejected at initial. This isn't unusual.
>
>> applicant of fraud were often dismissed years later at the appeal
>> stage. The pattern of these investigations reveal broad, institutional
>> flaws in Social Security’s programs and policies, which severely
>> prejudice the claims of these refugee applicants and other vulnerable
>> classes.
>
>No kidding. If refugees can just file and get SSDI when they never paid
>into the system, there is a HUGE problem. These cases should never get
>accepted.

"Doc" <doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD06B306D0EDDoc530@216.168.3.44...
> unow@example.com wrote in
>
> The list of people I know who weren't rejected at the initial application
> is very small. I know the official numbers indicate a larger approval,
> but
> most I know were rejected at initial. This isn't unusual.

Which in itself makes one wonder what the criteria for rejection are,
especially since so many rejections seem to be overturned on appeal. The
"This isn't unusual" cuts no ice with me because in parts of the world death
by starvation isn't unusual, either.

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:15:47 -0400, in alt.social-security-disability "The
Dissociated Press" <thebibbleguy@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>
>"Doc" <doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9AD06B306D0EDDoc530@216.168.3.44...
>> unow@example.com wrote in
>>
>> The list of people I know who weren't rejected at the initial application
>> is very small. I know the official numbers indicate a larger approval,
>> but
>> most I know were rejected at initial. This isn't unusual.
>
>Which in itself makes one wonder what the criteria for rejection are,
>especially since so many rejections seem to be overturned on appeal. The
>"This isn't unusual" cuts no ice with me because in parts of the world death
>by starvation isn't unusual, either.
>


Yes in every part of the world that the colonial powers have reached into. The
USA supports cruel dictatorships around the world and hates people like Chavez
who bring water to the poor. The USA is behind the atrocities that occured in
Cambodia.

Only 32% of people appeal after a CDI investigation causes their benifits to get
cut off. You would think the heartless bastards would be happy with cutting off
68% but no they want 100% to get cut off and not be reinstated by the ALJ. All
those folks at the CDI and DDS and the ALJ would not have a job if not for the
disabled people.. they all make money off us and they are on the public dole too
if you think about it. The drug companies, the doctors they all make money off
the disabled. We spin off dollars everywhere we go. If the CDI is not careful
it will work it's self right out of a job. They drive huge gas guzzling Vans at
tax payers expense when they come out to do their "surveillance". Ever notice
how the government and the police never drive old beaters? ONly the best for
them at the taxpayers expense.

<JohnQpublic@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ui5q64p19ck69lt9d0j9ved1arp3iekg37@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:32:06 -0500, in alt.social-security-disability Doc
> <doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote:
>
>>SSDI is for people who pay into the system. Not refugees. If some doctor
>>has been helping them get benefits they weren't entitled to, then yes his
>>name should be an automatic trigger for fraud.
>>
>>However, he should have been prosecuted for the fraud himself and had his
>>license to practice yanked.
>
>
> You are very ignorant.. please go to Iraq.

You're not going to get a lot of support by throwing insults at people. And
"ignorant" means "uninformed" or "unaware." What do you think the solution
for that is? Not planning to be your coach in PR, just saying.

Doc wrote:
> The list of people I know who weren't rejected at the initial application
> is very small. I know the official numbers indicate a larger approval, but
> most I know were rejected at initial. This isn't unusual.
>

From initial application to first payment was less than two months for me.
Perhaps the fact that I was 63 upon application expedited things? I also
feel that filing in a non-urban county helped. Folks tend to 'get lost'
in the system in the big cities? Maybe paying into the system for
forty plus years also helped? It was good to get the full SS benefit
rather than the early retirement amount.

Leroy

"The Dissociated Press" <thebibbleguy@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5dgbk.240241$fB7.185466@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> <JohnQpublic@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ui5q64p19ck69lt9d0j9ved1arp3iekg37@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:32:06 -0500, in alt.social-security-disability Doc
>> <doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote:
>>
>>>SSDI is for people who pay into the system. Not refugees. If some
>>>doctor
>>>has been helping them get benefits they weren't entitled to, then yes his
>>>name should be an automatic trigger for fraud.
>>>
>>>However, he should have been prosecuted for the fraud himself and had his
>>>license to practice yanked.
>>
>>
>> You are very ignorant.. please go to Iraq.
>
> You're not going to get a lot of support by throwing insults at people.
> And "ignorant" means "uninformed" or "unaware." What do you think the
> solution for that is? Not planning to be your coach in PR, just saying.
>
Ignore Mike Gibson. he is an ass and a troll. Not worth your time or
consideration.

"Leroy" <BogusAddy@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:22ibk.9527$89.1873@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Doc wrote:
>> The list of people I know who weren't rejected at the initial application
>> is very small. I know the official numbers indicate a larger approval,
>> but
>> most I know were rejected at initial. This isn't unusual.
>>
>
> From initial application to first payment was less than two months for me.
> Perhaps the fact that I was 63 upon application expedited things? I also
> feel that filing in a non-urban county helped. Folks tend to 'get lost'
> in the system in the big cities? Maybe paying into the system for
> forty plus years also helped? It was good to get the full SS benefit
> rather than the early retirement amount.
>
> Leroy
>
Not entirely true Leroy. I was injured in Baltimore city. On the day that I
applied i was dropped off at SSA office in the Rotunda (Woodlawn) with a
note pinned to my shirt which read "Please help my friend apply for SSDI".
Big city and yet I was approved on the first round. I had to wait the five
months, sure but I got those months in a check form, nonetheless. I spent
those five months going to Dr.s appointments set up by the SSA. One to give
his opinion on if my condition was psychological in nature or actually
physical remmants of the injury and a shit load of eye and brain doctors.
Very thourough examinations, I must say. I felt like a roach under a
microscope the whole time.
No family and only a few friends who were looking out for my vegitable ass.
But it does prove your assumptions to be flawed.
I don't mean to detract from your disability decision, only show that your
circumstance was not so unique due to geophysical location.

"Doc" <doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD06B306D0EDDoc530@216.168.3.44...
> unow@example.com wrote in
> news:v20o64l4e63l1j3ptav7ne093hcpcqotte@4ax.com:
>
>> S.A.'s story is far from unique. Since 2003, the CDI unit for Oakland,
>> CA, has investigated at least twenty-nine Cambodian disability
>> benefits applicants, all refugees at one point treated by S.A.'s
>> therapist.2 In at least twenty-four of these cases, no examining
>
> SSDI is for people who pay into the system. Not refugees.

If they worked enough to have 21 quarters, they're in.




If some doctor
> has been helping them get benefits they weren't entitled to, then yes his
> name should be an automatic trigger for fraud.
>
> However, he should have been prosecuted for the fraud himself and had his
> license to practice yanked.
>
>> doctors had diagnosed malingering; rather, the therapist's name had
>> triggered the investigation. These investigations led to a rejection
>> at the initial application stage, though they rarely accused the
>
> The list of people I know who weren't rejected at the initial application
> is very small. I know the official numbers indicate a larger approval,
> but
> most I know were rejected at initial. This isn't unusual.
>
>> applicant of fraud were often dismissed years later at the appeal
>> stage. The pattern of these investigations reveal broad, institutional
>> flaws in Social Security's programs and policies, which severely
>> prejudice the claims of these refugee applicants and other vulnerable
>> classes.
>
> No kidding. If refugees can just file and get SSDI when they never paid
> into the system, there is a HUGE problem. These cases should never get
> accepted.
>


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Jim" <Jim@home.corn> wrote in message
news:eb29c$48700977$13301@news.teranews.com...
>
> "Doc" <doc@oeltd.spam.yechh.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AD06B306D0EDDoc530@216.168.3.44...
>> unow@example.com wrote in
>> news:v20o64l4e63l1j3ptav7ne093hcpcqotte@4ax.com:
>>
>>> S.A.'s story is far from unique. Since 2003, the CDI unit for
>>> Oakland,
>>> CA, has investigated at least twenty-nine Cambodian disability
>>> benefits applicants, all refugees at one point treated by S.A.'s
>>> therapist.2 In at least twenty-four of these cases, no examining
>>
>> SSDI is for people who pay into the system. Not refugees.
>
> If they worked enough to have 21 quarters, they're in.

Most of them have less than 5 quarters and apply for SSI (welfare) not
SSDI.