free_spirit_etc

I wasn't aware that intent to harm was necessary to prove to show negligence. I thought you only had to show they breached the "duty of care" owed to you, whether or not they actually intended to harm you by such a breach. But then I am not well versed in this subject area, so I do not know anything for sure. I am merely stating my opinion. I also have no idea what forms they have you sign before representing you, but I would venture to guess that they include phrases that relieves them of liability for most things. Free

Oh wow! Well.. on such a time-line, then if I can get my hands on the rest of the medical records, I have time to get an IMO and get my claim fully developed before they review my claim.

Good points! I think in the case of the original poster, if the claim IS granted, but the effective date is much later, because the VSO told him NOT to appeal the first time (as no appeal was needed) - then he might have a case - as long as he can prove the VSO told him that - and that he relied on their advice, and thus suffered "harm." I think besides merely showing that he was harmed, and that the VSO gave him inadequate advice, he will also have to show that he relied on that advice. Not filing the appeal will be one part. But he could also find himself defending why he didn't file the appeal anyway (i.e. throwing it back in his lap.) From my understanding, his basic "harm" will be the amount he had to spend on health insurance for his children, because of the later effective date, or the delay in processing. But also important to keep in mind, the agency will pull in to defend itself, and sacrifice those whom it perceives to be a threat to it. ETA - okay..I read a bit more. Wanting to sue for both loss of backpay and kids insurance. On the loss of back pay - might be a case, if the VA states he is entitled to increased rating, but is limited to how far back he can be paid because he did not perfect his appeal. But, will have to see what the VA says first..... Free

Widow, That was a powerful post. And yes, if an agency puts itself out there promising to assist with your claim, then they have, in essence, made a contract to do so. And they have a certain accountability to uphold their portion of that contract, regardless of whether they charged you for that service. And regardless of whether you were specifically charged money for them representing you - they have been paid for those services through other means. Also important to keep in mind is that veterans have been barred from paying people to assist with their claims, until very recently. The system was set up restricting vets to use non-paid representatives to assist them (or more appropriately, representatives who were paid by other means.)

Thanks Carlie! That is some pretty useful information!

Just for curiosity, you can look up the approval and denial rate of your judge here: http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ss...y_database.html To get the stats on a specific judge, enter the judge’s name and click search. To access the entire database, just click search without entering a name. You can sort the table by any of the categories by clicking on the category header. So you can sort it by number of decisions, approval rate, denial rate, etc. You can also find information on all the ALJs at that location by searching at the Federal Employee Salary Database at: http://php.app.com/fed_employees/search.php Agency – enter Social Security Adminstration Job Title – enter Adminstrative Law Judge Location – enter State – then enter County It will list all the ALJs in 2008 at that location (and their 2008 salaries). You can take this info back to the ALJ decision database and look up the stats for all the ALJs at that office.

Yep. It is frustrating. And you can fight it. But it will take quite some time now. AC appeals are not fast. If you are not comfortable with your attorney, you are always entitled to get another one - but that is not always easy at this stage of the game. Your current attorney is more familiar with your case. But as the local attorney has indicated she is willing to do your appeal for you, you might be able to ask if she would be willing to take your case even if the current attorney is willing to file an appeal. She isn't really allowed to try to "steal" you away from another attorney - but you are certainly free to fire and hire attorneys on your own. David Traver has some interesting posts on his forum SSA Connect http://ssaconnect.com/ about challenging VE testimony. Here is a portion of one such post: http://ssaconnect.com/component/option,com...flexible+facts/

From the Hallex Manual http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-03/I-3-3-2.html I-3-3-2. Abuse of Discretion Last Update: 9/08/05 (Transmittal I-3-36) Black's Law Dictionary defines abuse of discretion as “a judgment or decision by an administrative agency or judge which has no foundation in fact or in law or a failure to exercise a sound, reasonable and legal discretion.” When a judgment or conclusion is involved, abuse of discretion means acting in a manner that is imprudent, incautious, unwise, against precedent, and clearly against logic. In the context of the ALJ's actions, abuse of discretion occurs when the action taken is clearly not justified under the particular circumstances of the case. The following are examples of abuses of discretion by an ALJ: * The ALJ did not grant a request for postponement of the scheduled hearing even though the claimant's attending physician contacted the ALJ and confirmed that the claimant's current health would not permit attendance at the hearing. * The ALJ refused to grant a claimant's request for additional time to submit a hospital report even though the hospital's custodian of records submitted a statement attesting to the need for additional time because of fire damage in the records department. http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-03/I-3-3-3.html I-3-3-3. Error of Law Last Update: 9/08/05 (Transmittal I-3-36) The following represent broad categories of errors of law: * Misinterpretation of law, regulations, or Social Security Rulings. * Misapplication of the law, regulations, or rulings to the facts (e.g., the ALJ established a period of disability beginning after the date the claimant last met the special earnings requirements). * Failure to consider pertinent provisions of law, regulations, or rulings. * Failure to make a finding of fact, or to give reasons for making a finding of fact, on an issue properly before the ALJ. * A procedural error (more than technical) which affects due process (e.g., improper notice of hearing, or failure to notify the claimant of the right to request cross-examination). * Failure to rule on an objection raised at the hearing (e.g., an objection to the admission of certain exhibits). http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-03/I-3-3-4.html I-3-3-4. ALJ's Action, Findings or Conclusions Not Supported by Substantial Evidence Last Update: 9/08/05 (Transmittal I-3-36) A. General Under the provisions of the regulations of 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470, if the decision of an ALJ is supported by “substantial evidence,” the Appeals Council will deny the request for review or decline own motion review on this basis even though the Appeals Council might reach a different conclusion if it considered the case de novo under the “weight of the evidence” rule. The Appeals Council applies the same “substantial evidence” standard of review as the United States district courts. B. Weight of the Evidence “Weight of the evidence” is defined as the balance or preponderance of evidence; the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence to support one side of the issue rather than the other. C. Substantial Evidence “Substantial evidence” is defined as that evidence which, although less than a preponderance, nevertheless is sufficient to convince a reasonable mind of the credibility of a position taken on an issue, when no evidence on the opposing side clearly compels another finding or conclusion. Therefore, the “substantial evidence” rule requires less in support of a finding or conclusion than the “weight of the evidence” rule. Evidence on one side of an issue need not possess greater weight or be more convincing and credible to be “substantial.” D. Applying Substantial Evidence Rule To determine whether an ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the analyst first must study each finding made to resolve an issue in the case and the evidence the ALJ cites to support the finding. The analyst must then study the record as a whole (i.e., the evidence cited by the ALJ in support of his or her findings and all other evidence of record) to determine whether the ALJ reached a conclusion consistent with those findings. The Appeals Council will not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. The fact that the ALJ could have made different findings based on the evidence of record is irrelevant. When the ALJ clearly misinterpreted or incorrectly evaluated evidence upon which the decision was based, the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. If the evidence cited by the ALJ is not substantial, but other substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ's conclusion, the Appeals Council will grant review for corrective action. If the record is otherwise complete, the Appeals Council will issue a decision. However, where the record is incomplete or credibility and/or subjective complaints are at issue, the Appeals Council will remand the case to an ALJ for further proceedings. The Appeals Council generally will not review a favorable decision on its own motion if the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's ultimate conclusion. http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-03/I-3-3-5.html I-3-3-5. Broad Policy or Procedural Issue Last Update: 9/08/05 (Transmittal I-3-36) In studying a case, the analyst must be alert to the possible existence of significant questions of law, policy, or procedure. When an analyst decides to recommend that the Appeals Council review an ALJ's decision under this category, the analyst will route the recommendation through the Branch Chief and Director of Operations. http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-03/I-3-3-6.html I-3-3-6. New and Material Evidence Last Update: 9/08/05 (Transmittal I-3-36) A. General In deciding whether to review a case, the Appeals Council will consider any new and material evidence received. When a claimant or representative submits additional evidence, it must be both new and material to warrant the Appeals Council's consideration. Evidence is new when it is not duplicative, cumulative or repetitive. It is material when it affects the ALJ's findings or conclusions and relates to the time period specified in section B. below. Black's Law Dictionary defines material evidence as “such as is relevant and goes to the substantial matters in dispute, or has a legitimate and effective influence or bearing on the decision of the case.” When new and material evidence has been submitted with a request for review, the analyst will apply the weight of the evidence rule instead of the substantial evidence rule in deciding whether to recommend review action to the Appeals Council. B. Closed Record The Appeals Council will consider the additional evidence only if it relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ's decision. The “closed record” regulations at 20 CFR 404.976(:) and 416.1476(:) apply to: 1. Title II claims based on an application filed after June 30, 1980. 2. Title XVI claims based on an application filed after April 30, 1986. 3. Title II claims not based on an application (e.g., cessation or termination cases), effective with requests for review filed on or after February 9, 1987. The closed record regulations do not apply to Title XVI claims not based on an application (e.g., cessation or termination cases). NOTE: For Title II claims, when the date last insured (disability insurance benefits), the last day of the prescribed period (widow's insurance benefits based on disability), or the date the claimant attained age 22 (child's insurance benefits based on disability) predates the date of the hearing decision, evidence which pertains to the period after the earlier date is not material to the case. http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-03/I-3-3-7.html I-3-3-7. Other Bases for Appeals Council Review Last Update: 9/08/05 (Transmittal I-3-36) In evaluating a case, the analyst must ensure that the ALJ's decision properly addresses those issues identified by the Circuit Courts as significant. If the Appeals Council finds a basis under the regulatory criteria for granting a request for review, an Appeals Council decision will discuss any significant circuit issues. The rationale must demonstrate that the Appeals Council has properly considered the issue according to circuit law. In cases the Appeals Council proposes to remand, if the hearing decision did not adequately respond to issues which are of particular concern in that circuit, the remand order must so specify and include a verbatim recitation of the relevant excerpt from the applicable circuit court decision. NOTE: Adjudicators of disability claims of New York State residents involving medical or vocational issues are reminded that they are required to apply the controlling Second Circuit holdings set forth in the Manual of Second Circuit Disability Decisions attached to the instructions for implementing the Stieberger court-approved settlement (see I-5-4-13).

Here are the bases for Appeals Council Review: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-03/I-3-3-1.

A VERY valid point that sometimes prejudices do come into play. I do believe that most ALJs try to be fair and objective. But some do not. If they look for reasons to deny the claim - based on irrelevant prejudices - they are NOT being fair and objective.

Berta, Thanks! The medical records are not in the C file- they have to be requested separately. I have his SMRs and Post Service Medical Records – except his discharge physical. My husband put in a specific request for a copy of the discharge physical before he died. I put in a specific request for the discharge physical after my husband’s death. I even drove to Chicago to see the file – but we couldn’t find it. But again, the C-file was pretty jumbled up – and quite a few files were in no particular order. They told me my husband may not have submitted it to them. My husband applied to VA benefits as he was retiring. So his records went straight to the VA upon his retirement. We attempted to get a copy of the discharge physical from the National Records Center, but they responded that all my husbands records are the possession of the VA. My husband’s chronological history in his medical records indicates he received an extensive physical June 18, 1998 and that a Form 2697 was completed. But the form is not in his file. Some of his earlier VA decisions reference the discharge physical – indicating that it had been part of his file when those decisions were made. It appears that the VA may have lost his discharge physical. Again, when I received his C-file there were copies of other veteran’s medical records in my husband’s C-file. I even wrote the VA and asked them to check those veteran’s records and see if they could find a copy of my husband’s discharge physical in their records. I keep requesting that they send me a copy of his discharge physical if it can be located. The frustrating thing is that they keep acting like it was my husband’s responsibility to send a copy of the form the them, when in fact, they had the original document, and now seem to have lost it before we could get a copy. The C & P medical opinion can be obtained from the VAMC where the C & P was done. I have a copy of my husband’s C&P exams. But my DIC denial letter listed as evidence a VA medical opinion (not a C&P exam) done in October 2006. I have put in specific requests – The October 22, 2007 letter denying my claim lists a October 2006 VA Medical Opinion as evidence. I would like to get a copy of that opinion. I was told my request was forwarded to the Privacy Act Officer – and that they would send a copy of the opinion, while I was still waiting for the C-file. However, I just got the C-file. Reports of Contact are in the C file. When I got the copy of the C-file, the only thing resembling a medical opinion is the opinion handwritten on a Report of Contact form. I only got the first page. (This is most likely the same medical opinion they referenced in the denial letter, though I am not certain. I also think the medical opinion was written October 2007, rather than October 2006, as listed – i.e. written as they were adjudicating my DIC claim). I informed the VA I only got the first page of the medical opinion written on the Report of Contact form, and requested the remainder of the report. They responded that I would need to tell them the date the report was written in order to locate it. I informed them I don’t have the date, as it is not on the portion of the report that I have. They asked me to send a copy of the report I have. I sent it by certified mail. They (much later) informed me they did not receive it. I had sent the copy along with a packet of evidence I was sending in response to the VCAA notice. I sent an IRIS informing them that I had sent both and gave them the tracking number. The VA signed for the document. But they informed me later that they never received it. I would think between the actual medical records and the C file that the discharge certificate should be found in the files they have. I totally and completely agree. That is why I have trouble understanding the perpetual circles we keep going around in trying to obtain these documents. That is why I was wondering if it might be better to just ask my Congressman if they can obtain them for me. It has been some time since you were here Yes. I have been pretty busy handling our Social Security claims, which took most of my focus. I didn’t have a lot of time left over to chase my tail with the VA. So I did what I needed to do to keep the claim open with the VA while I focused on Social Security. Now that Social Security is settled, for the most part, I can start focusing on the VA again. the VCAA letter they sent to you some time ago ( requiring a response) contains everything they need to have. I sent an entire packet of evidence in response to the VCAA notice, including buddy statements, evidence of my son’s disability, and other supporting documents. I had asked for an extension of time to submit evidence, as I wanted to submit an IMO, but was waiting for the VA to send me the C-file, and the medical opinions. They informed me that they forwarded my request for an extension to someone who would check and see if it could be granted. But I never heard back from them. As I never heard back from them, I submitted the evidence I did have within one year of receiving the VCAA notice (June 2008). I also sent them an IRIS informing them I sent the evidence and giving them the certified mail receipt number. They responded by telling me that I didn’t have any open claims, (except the burial claim) and so they didn’t know what I was submitting evidence for. I informed them that I was submitting the evidence in response to the June 2007 VCAA letter – and though they had adjudicated my claim in November 2007 – since I submitted evidence within one year of the June 2007 VCAA notice, I wanted the claim re-adjudicated. We went back and forth many times in IRIS – and several MONTHS later – when I finally asked POINT BLANK “Did you GET the evidence I sent?” They responded that they had not received it. (They also told me that there was no advantage to using certified mail – so I should just start sending things by regular mail. – ACK!!!!) This seemed particularly crazy. I submitted evidence within one year. I sent the IRIS saying “Since I have not heard back on my request for extension of time, I am sending the evidence I DO have within one year of the VCAA notice. I sent it today. This is the Certified Mail Receipt number.” We IRISed back and forth MULTIPLE times about my claim. And not one time did they mention they had not received the package that I had submitted the original IRIS about. They did receive the package, because I have a signed receipt from the VA for it. I have resubmitted that evidence, along with both evidence that I sent it and evidence that the VA received it – under the Request for Special Claims Processing for Missing Documents.

James, Thank you very much! I thought asking them to correct a CUE and filing a NOD were two distinct things. However, I realize that asking them to correct the error was, in effect, disagreeing with the decision. I did send the second one, labeled NOD, later - to make sure they wouldn't say I did not send an NOD. But what I am understanding you to say is that they can actually correct the error (i.e. acknowledge my appeal was timely) AND process the initial appeal at the same time. That is wonderful news! So it would only be in the event that they did not consider my initial appeal to be timely that the NOD on the timeliness of the appeal would be processed alone? And yes, the initial appeal was the appeal on the initial decision on my DIC claim. I highly doubt that I will have the case fully developed by that time. I guess it depends on how long it takes. My main problem is that I need to submit and IMO. But I am hesitant to get one until I get all my husband's medical records. I did get a copy of the C-file. But I am missing: 1. My husband's discharge physical. 2. A copy of the VA opinion that was listed as evidence in the denial letter. 3. The complete report written on a Report of Contact form that was issuing a medical decision. It is very likely that 2 and 3 are the same thing. The report written on the Report of Contact form is a hand written medical opinion. But I only got the first page. It says (over) at the bottom, but I didn't get the rest of the report. I have asked for the reports quite a few times, but they keep telling me that I need to give them the names of the doctor, dates, etc. in order for them to locate them. I don't have that information. That information is on the reports (which I do not have a copy of). The discharge physical was in my husband's file at one point. He filed his initial claim when he retired - so his files went straight to the VA. And his earlier decisions reference the discharge physical. But that seems to have disappeared. But I am hesitant to get an IMO, only to have it discounted because the doctor did not review the documents that I can't get a copy of. So I am wondering what the best way to proceed on that would be. 1. Ask for my Congressman to try to obtain me a copy of the documents I have been requesting. 2. Drive to the VARO and see if I can get copies in person. 3. Ask the doctor to write an opinion and mention that that certain medical documents are missing. 4. Something different. At this point my claim is supposed to be in a Special Processing Center for claims requesting special processing for missing documents. I resubmitted the evidence I had sent (by certified mail) in June 2008 (within one year of the VCAA notice). Free

From another thread: http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33395 Berta (or others who know such things...), I am very interested in this part. I sent a request for the VA to correct a clear and unmistakable error on my claim in February 2009. The issue was the November 2008 dismissal of my appeal as untimely, though it was clearly sent within the time-frame. The VA signed for the CUE request document, and acknowledged by IRIS that they had received it. However, they referred to it as an NOD, rather than a CUE Request, in the IRIS. It is clearly labeled at the top of each page "Request for Correction of Clear and Unmistakable Error RE: Dismissal of November 7, 2008 NOD". As the VA did not take any action on my Request that they CUE itself, I also submitted an NOD on the same issue in October 2009, to assure that it is on record that I disagreed within the time-frame to do so. However, it does seem like my claim might move faster if the moved on the CUE, and corrected the error, and then processed my initial NOD (as timely) than if they go all the way through the appeals process with the NOD on whether my appeal was timely, before they ever start dealing with my November 2008 NOD itself. So I am interested in your statement that if you ask the VA to CUE themselves, they have to do something. Would it be advisable for me to follow up and address that issue, and ask the VA when they expect they might address my February 2009 CUE request?

Larry, I also want to see you remain active on this board. I appreciate your dedication, your wisdom, your directness, and your humor. I am sorry my actions caused you to want to leave. And my offer still stands - If the reason you want to leave the board is because of me - I will leave, rather than have you feel you need to do so. Free

Halos, I was not attempting to shoot any messenger for delivering any factual message. I do agree that Larry is right, that generally a person has to be not working to be approved for SSD. However, I respectfully disagree with the idea that most members present that it is impossible to get SSD while working. You will not get SSD while working full-time. You will not get SSD while engaging in SGA. You will not get SSD if Social Security determines you are [bold]capable[/bold] of engaging in SGA, regardless of whether you are doing so. However, there are certain circumstances where people are awarded SSD, while still working, if their disability is such that though they are still able to work some, they are no longer able to work enough to earn the Substantial Gainful amount. This can sometimes be the case in progressive conditions. The person begins to work less and less, and often eventually becomes unable to work at all. I read in a Social Security forum (SSA Connect) that people often lose a significant amount of benefits because they list their date of onset of disability as the day they stopped working, rather when their income dropped below substantial gainful employment. When my husband first applied for SSD, he was initially told by the intake worker that his period of disability would start December 2005 (the point he quit working). We asked her to check and see if they could consider the period from July 2005 – November 2005 also, because at that point his earnings had dropped below the substantial gainful amount, though he was still working. They approved his disability effective July 2005 – and so December 2005 became the first month he could be paid benefits, rather than the first month of his 5 month waiting period. So one thing that really stood out to me was the fact that the Original Poster indicated he was finding it harder and harder to keep working.. That indicated to me he may well go through that period where he keeps trying to work, but finds himself earning less and less. I would recommend that if this becomes the case, that he does speak with Social Security, and / or an attorney to find out his options. He does need to be fully informed on this matter, and not just go by what someone told him somewhere, because they have all kind of rules about what constitutes SGA (Substantial Gainful Activity) and what constitutes TWP (Trial Work Period). The threshold for TWP is lower – and a month can count as a month used in a Trial Work Period, even if the person did not earn enough to constitute SGA. With that being said – my real issue was not that the poster was being told that in order to qualify for SSD he had to be completely unable to work at all. That seems to be the general consensus of the group. And that is also the general rule in most cases. My real issue was that I believed the poster was in all sincerity asking a legitimate question. He had been told he could work while waiting to be approved for SSD, and he wanted to know if that was true. If I were gobbling pain pills and putting myself through significant pain to try to keep working to support my family, I would most likely ask the same question – if I had been given the same information the poster had been given by his neighbor. Is that true? If Social Security sees how much pain I am in and how much it is killing me to try to keep my family fed, will they find me disabled so I won’t have to keep going through this? Unfortunately, we do know the answer is no. We do know that they will not say, “Yes. You are disabled – so you don’t have to work anymore. You can quit now.” (It would be nice if it did work that way though, in some cases.) But I still thought the poster had a sincere, honest, legitimate question. As such, I pointed this out in response to the eye rolling post. At this point, I wish I had not done so. Because it did not result in more respect for the poster. It resulted in his question actually being called stupid, and Larry wanting to leave the board. I do not want Larry to leave the board on my account. If my actions caused Larry to want to leave the board, then I would prefer to be the one to leave. And I have stated such. Well… I didn’t actually state it – but did tell Larry that he doesn’t have to leave; that I will. Larry contributes a lot to this board. I contribute from time to time, but am not consistent in doing so. I am not leaving in anger. Though I do leave in sadness. But if I have only been back on the board for a few days, and have already created turmoil in a thread, caused a fellow member’s post to be called stupid, and made another fellow member want to quit the board – then maybe I am not ready to be back here yet. Maybe in time I will be ready.

You don't have to leave Larry. I will. Free

Larry, Personally, I think he asked a very legitimate question. And I believe he deserves considerate answers and respect. He is not asking how to cheat the system. He is saying that he has some pretty significant physical disabilities - such that SSA might consider him to be disabled - and he wants to know if he has to quit working in order to apply, and be approved for, benefits. I do not see anything wrong with that question. Nor do I see any reason for him to be ridiculed on this board. Free

The folks that said you cannot work and get approved for SSD were correct. If you can work full time and make above SGA (Substantial Gainful Activity) then you cannot meet the criteria for being disabled - as you are capable of earning above SGA because you are doing so. However, the folks that said you can work and get approved were also correct. As long as you are not capable of working above the SGA amount. This doesn't just mean that you can cut back hours and earn just below SGA to get SSD. They would still need to determine if you are actually capable of earning more than you do (i.e. working more hours) or capable of doing a different type of job. The reason I asked was because of your statement that you are finding it harder and harder to work. If this is a progressive thing, that keeps getting worse, then you might want to learn all you can about applying now - so you will know what to do when you can't work as much. If your condition gets progressively worse, you might not have to wait until you cannot work at all to apply or get approved. If you get to the point where you cannot consistently work enough to keep earning above SGA, you might want to go ahead and apply even though you are still working. Of course they might question whether you really are not capable of working that much, or just don't want to. However, that is a legitimate question for them to ask. It is part of their job to find the answer to that question. If the answer is you are really not capable - then you are disabled under their standards. So- can you work while waiting to be approved for SSD? In certain circumstances - maybe. Can I ask - 1. Are you taking more than the prescribed amount of pain killers? 2. Does working (while popping pain pills to numb the pain) cause your condition to worsen?

Can I ask what is making it harder for you to work? What is your disability? And what type of work do you do? Are you taking off work a lot? Do you need special accommodations to keep doing your work? What is making it harder for you to work?

Betty, You will ALWAYS be a hero to me!

I like the electric radiator heaters too. They are pretty safe to heat with compared to some of the other types. I use four in my house. I would rather use several at lower temps than have one or two cranked up to full force. My house is early 60's and the wiring is not new. And again, one of my friends loaned me a portable furnace to try out this winter. I would agree that these types of heater would most likely be very sufficient for heating needs in Georgia. I am in the St. Louis area, and these heaters do a very good job of keeping the house pretty comfortable (even set on medium) until the weather stays cold for several days. I have a brick house - and as long as the sun can warm up the bricks a little each day, it helps. But if the temp stays low a few days at a time - those bricks can stay really cold. I actually used two of these heaters even with the furnace. We have a tri-level with vault ceilings in the living room - which is not the easiest type of house to heat efficiently. Using the furnace alone to keep the living room comfortable kept the furnace running most of the time and the upstairs blasting hot. So I don't really think just getting a new "energy efficient" furnace is the only answer to look into. And we have spent so much on the furnace in the past several years, I hesitate to put much more money in it. Actually, last year, I thought I had pinpointed the problem - the draft inducer fan. But they keep replacing everything else. Last year the guy who used to run the business (but has retired) was filling in one day and he said - Of course it isn't working, the draft inducer fan needs replaced. (Aha! I thought so). He just wired it up to hold it steady - to see if it would get me through the winter. And it did (except there were times the furnace wouldn’t come on and I had to go down and move the fan around a bit). But I think it has died now. And every time I consider calling someone to get it replaced, I worry that they will start replacing everything else too – and I don’t know how many more $200 - $500 parts I am willing to stick on an old furnace. So I start considering the possibility of getting a new furnace, but comparing those isn’t easy for me. And it is cheaper to replace both the furnace and AC at the same time. But my AC is still working. Agh! I don’t make these decisions well. So I keep looking for information. But I am leaning more toward zone heating. I think that might work better in this old tri-level. And am looking into using more than one type of heating source. I am not comfortable using the fireplace. My husband knew how to use the fireplace, but I never learned. And I am hesitant to start fires within my home without knowing what I am doing. But I am considering getting a gas insert or pellet insert for that – which would give us a source of heat during power outages. As I am only using the electric heaters now, I am keeping an eye on my usage throughout the month – and reading my meter pretty often to make sure I don’t get hit with a bill MUCH larger than expected. But so far, I seem to be doing okay. But I have so much to learn about heating, and insulating, and efficiency, and wiring, etc. etc. etc. before I can begin to make an educated long term decision about what I want to do about heating this house. And never underestimate the timing of heat generating activities on those cold days. I find the coldest days are the best ones to catch up on my laundry and bake cookies! :)

Ahhh... Your steadfast love for Mrs. Pete always shines through like a beacon. That's one thing I like about you. :) Free

Halos, That is downright beautiful! :) Free

Wings, I am reminded of the old saying "It takes one to know one." So from one warrior for truth to another - HUGS right back at you! :)

Pete, So I get to be Hadit's Poster Child of crazy waiting? LOL Congratulations on sending something to the VA that actually stayed in your file! But yes, a word to the wise (and those of us who need to be wiser) - be careful reacting on impulse - it may come back to bite you. Personally, I do NOT believe that Social Security plays near as many games as the VA as a GENERAL rule. Through the years I have found them to be a pretty nice agency to deal with. The games they played with our survivor claims really threw me for a loop. I do not believe that is the general way they do business. But they do seem to be able to get “down and dirty” when they chose to. We never had to fight for disability. Years ago, when I applied for my son, I only applied because he was hospitalized for so long – and they were recommending residential placement – and so the state required us to apply for SSI. But he was approved at the initial level. My husband was also approved in just a few weeks after applying. So I have never experienced the “battle for disability” with SSA. But as everyone at Hadit is aware, having a working knowledge of the agency and regulations can also often be a key to winning a claim. Yes. I have heard all the rumors – Social Security says if you can lift a pencil, you can work. But I don’t believe the rumors are true. I do believe that Social Security has some very definite parameters that you have to fit into to be approved at the initial levels. If you do not fit clearly into those parameters, it doesn’t mean you won’t be approved, but it does mean that the process will take awhile. One thing I did find very lacking was support networks, such as Hadit, for those applying for Social Security who either could not find a lawyer, or chose not to get one. That is most likely because lawyers have been allowed to be involved in Social Security claims when they were not allowed in VA claims. But it does make it VERY difficult to navigate the system for those who are pursuing a claim without an attorney. And it is even more difficult for those pursuing survivor claims. But then, again, I do not think there are really that many people actually “fighting” for survivor benefits compared to those fighting for disability. I would hate to even guess how many hours I spent reading Social Security laws, regulations, policies, cases, etc. just trying to hang in there – and I still didn’t know if I was doing things half right. I am glad I hung in there and I am glad I finally got to have a hearing. I was worried for awhile because I was not sure: 1. If we would ever get to have a hearing. 2. How high up the games would go (especially since the crazy decisions we were getting were signed in ink - supposedly by someone pretty high up in the agency – leading me to believe the games might be coming from pretty high up.) It is kind of scary when it seems like they are out to get you and you are not sure if there is anyone in the system you will be able to trust. I even filed a discrimination complaint, but I did not receive a response to it, and no one from that agency returned the phone messages I left. So I really started to wonder if we would be “sacrificed” so to speak. So I started laying kind of low on that aspect – because I didn’t want to be sacrificed if the system decided to protect itself, rather than address the issues. We were very fortunate to get a Judge who didn’t play into the games. I feel very blessed in that. And we also eventually did hear from the OIG on our discrimination complaint. However, they did not find any discrimination occurred. They did find multiple “processing errors.” As I really have no intent to sue – it might not matter if they choose to call what occurred discrimination or processing errors – as long as they address the issues. But the problem I had with the letter was that in explaining why they found no discrimination, they gave a whole lot of bogus reasons. Instead of addressing the issues, they explained away the whole thing. They basically said all the things I said occurred didn’t occur. I appealed that decision – mostly because I am not convinced they ever really addressed the issues as long as they are explaining the whole thing away.