Navigating Social Security Disability with Shipon Law Associates: A Beacon for Multiple Sclerosis Warriors

Navigating Social Security Disability with Shipon Law Associates

Living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a daily challenge, and for some, the impact on their ability to work can be profound. Shipon Law Associates stands as a stalwart ally for individuals grappling with MS, offering specialized assistance in navigating the complex terrain of Social Security Disability claims.

Understanding Multiple Sclerosis and Its Challenges

Multiple Sclerosis is an unpredictable and often debilitating autoimmune condition affecting the central nervous system. Its symptoms can range from fatigue and difficulty walking to cognitive impairment, making it challenging for individuals to maintain regular employment.

Shipon Law Associates: Advocates for MS Warriors

Shipon Law Associates specializes in disability law and has demonstrated expertise in representing individuals with MS in their Social Security Disability cases. The firm understands the unique struggles faced by those with MS and tailors its approach to address the specific challenges associated with this condition.

No Fee Until We Win: A Commitment to Clients

Shipon Law Associates recognizes the financial strain that often accompanies disability. To alleviate this burden, the firm operates on a “No Fee Until We Win” basis. This means that clients can seek expert legal representation without worrying about upfront costs, ensuring access to justice for those who need it most.

National Representation: Bringing Justice Wherever You Are

The reach of Shipon Law Associates extends beyond geographical boundaries. Individuals with MS seeking Social Security Disability assistance can benefit from the firm’s national representation. The legal team is equipped to advocate for clients nationwide, offering the same level of dedication and expertise, regardless of location.

The Shipon Advantage

What sets Shipon Law Associates apart is not just their legal prowess but also their compassionate approach. The team understands the intricacies of MS and collaborates closely with clients to build a strong case that accurately reflects the impact of the condition on their ability to work.

How Shipon Law Associates Can Help

1. Thorough Case Evaluation: Shipon Law Associates conducts a detailed assessment of each case, taking into account the unique challenges posed by MS.
2. Expert Legal Representation: The firm leverages its expertise in disability law to build a compelling case, highlighting the specific limitations imposed by MS on the individual’s ability to work.
3. National Advocacy: Shipon Law Associates extends its services nationwide, ensuring that individuals with MS, regardless of location, can access top-tier legal representation.
4. No Fee Until We Win: Clients can pursue their case without financial stress, as Shipon Law Associates operates on a contingency fee basis – no fees are charged until a favorable outcome is achieved.

In conclusion, Shipon Law Associates emerges as a beacon of hope for individuals with MS seeking Social Security Disability benefits. With a commitment to justice, national representation, and a compassionate approach, the firm stands ready to champion the rights of those whose lives have been impacted by Multiple Sclerosis.

Epilepsy Foundation Supports Access to Medication for California Students

In recent years, the Epilepsy Foundation has received a number of reports from consumers whose children are prescribed Diastat (a rectally administered diazepam) or other FDA approved treatments and are denied access to schools, daycare, school- related activities, or have incurred unnecessary medical risks, because schools and child care service providers refuse to make the medica- tions readily available onsite. Because these medicines, including Diastat, are designed and FDA approved to be safely administered by lay people, family and caregivers who have been educated in its delivery, lack of access to a doctor or nurse on-site is not an acceptable reason to refuse to administer the medication or to deny a child or student access to the program. In addition, federal and state law is clear that students who need medical or related services while participating in school and school activities are entitled to receive those services. Therefore, the Foundation joins families, medical experts, and advocates in demanding that children and students who use medications in school receive them promptly when needed.

A case of interest to the epilepsy com- munity, and any school child who needs medications, is American Nurses Association (ANA) v. Jack O’Connell. In this case, the ANA challenged a settlement agreement between the American Diabetes Association

(ADA) and the California Superintendent of Education. The agreement allowed unlicensed school personnel to be trained to monitor administration of insulin for studentss with diabetes when a school nurse was not available. There is currently a severe shortage of school nurses in California; there are only about 2,800 school nurses to care for the over six mil- lion students in California public schools, creating a ratio of about only one school nurse for every 2,200 students. In fact, only about five percent of California public schools have a full-time school nurse, 69 percent have a part-time school nurse, and about 26 percent have no school nurse at all. Without the agreement to allow trained staff to administer insulin to students when a school nurse is not present, some students would likely not receive insulin doses that are medically necessary. This reality notwith- standing, the ANA filed this challenge to the agreement and the plans of the state educa- tion system to make the medication avail- able, arguing that the California Nursing Practice Act (NPA) prohibits the administra- tion of insulin without the presence of a nurse.

In 2008, the Sacramento County Superior Trial Court declared that the agree- ment regarding unlicensed school personnel provision was invalid. Although expressly acknowledging that the outcome adversely affected not only the educational opportuni- ties of students with diabetes, but also their health and safety, the trial court concluded that the NPA prohibited unlicensed persons from administering medication categorically and that the California Education Code did not authorize unlicensed school personnel to administer insulin to students with diabetes.

Furthermore, the trial court found that fed- eral law (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) did not preempt the NPA’s prohibition against unlicensed school personnel administering insulin.

On appeal in 2010, the Third Appellate District applied an extremely broad interpre- tation of the California NPA, and affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the NPA pro-hibits non-medical school personnel from administering insulin to students with dia- betes. Moreover, the appellate court ruled that the NPA prohibits anyone but a nurse from administering any type of medication in any setting (outside of a few narrow exceptions), and that the federal disability laws do not preempt California’s NPA, even in situations where there is no nurse present to administer insulin to a student.

In both the trial and appellate courts, the ADA and the California Department of Education argued that the NPA does not prohibit non-medical school personnel from administering insulin, that state law actually authorizes this practice, and that federal civil rights laws protecting students with disabili- ties preempt any such prohibition in state law, at least when a school nurse or other licensed person is not available to administer the medication.

The Epilepsy Foundation submitted an amicus curiae letter to the California Supreme Court urging that court’s review on appeal to settle an important question of law. All of California’s school children who require administration of medications at school could be adversely affected by this ruling, includ- ing children who require antiseizure medica- tions such as Diastat.

The California Supreme Court is current- ly considering the case. It should be noted that many organizations have filed friend of the court briefs opposing the lower court’s ruling, including the U. S. Department of Education (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). In a joint brief, the United States noted that it took no position on whether the Court of Appeals correctly inter- preted California law in the case; however, it asserted that the Court of Appeal’s interpre- tation of the California NPA, as applied to the case, conflicts with federal law to provide a free and appropriate education to students. Therefore, it is preempted by federal law.

To review a copy of the brief filed by the DOE and DOJ, please see our website: epilepsy/attyresources.

Are For-Profit Colleges Good Alternatives to Other Post-Secondary Education Options?

Congressional Hearings Held and Education Department Final Rule Issued on the “Gainful Employment” Rule

Many individuals with disabilities attend for-profit colleges and other career-training programs. This appears to be in part due to difficulties students with disabilities can face in the traditional post-secondary education environment, such as high grade and test score requirements, long waiting lists, and lack of adequate disability services. However, it appears there is data showing potential risks for people attending for-profit colleges.

For-profit colleges have been sharply criticized over the past year for their recruiting practices, which aggres sively target low-income, minority, single parent, and dis abled students. While these schools make enormous profits, many fail to provide adequate supports for their students, leaving students with massive debt, and no jobs to pay it off. Students enrolled in for-profit schools repre sent just 10 percent of all undergraduate students, but account for 44 percent of all student loan defaults.

For-profit colleges can provide a valuable educational opportunity for students, but these schools have also been reported to use aggressive recruiting tactics, focused heavily on vulnerable disabled students. Often, for-profit colleges make promises they do not keep, such as disabil ity support services, employment advisors, and individu alized attention. Even when a school does not fulfill the promises recruitment officers may have made, students are still responsible for costs even if they decide to with draw from the program.

A broad-based investigation of for-profit schools was launched by Senator Tom Harkin as a result of the rapid increases in the amount of federal financial aid and other federal student assistance programs flowing to these schools. The purpose of the investigation was to under stand how well for-profit schools, many of which are highly profitable publicly traded corporations, are serving students and taxpayers. As part of this effort, Senator Harkin led five hearings and collected data from 30 for profit schools. To review reports from the investigation led by Senator Harkin, see forprofitcolleges.cfm.

On June 2, 2011 the Department of Education released a final rule designed to hold for-profit colleges and career training programs accountable for preparing their students for employment. The regulation, known as the “Gainful Employment” rule ensures that schools which fail to demonstrate the effectiveness of programs to prepare their students for “gainful employment” would risk losing their eligibility to participate in federal education grant and loan programs. The rule mandates that programs would lose their eligibility to dispense federal student aid if, over the next four years, their graduates fail to meet new bench marks for loan repayment and ratio of debt to income.

National Office Launches New Website

After much anticipation, the national Epilepsy Foundation launched its new and improved website on August 1, 2011. The site has a new look, streamlined navigation, enhanced technolo gies, and an enhanced e-communities design to sup port our growing online health community of 15,000. The site links to new Facebook pages and Twitter feeds, as well as a redesigned online store. One of the most exciting features is our planned new tool, WebEase. This is an online epilepsy self management program designed to help those with epilepsy better manage their stress, sleep and medication adherence.

With new research content, features, and tools, the site will empower the Foundation to lead the fight to stop seizures, find a cure, and overcome the challenges created by epilepsy.

Please visit our site at

Fund Recognizes Contributions of Attorney Marc Shipon

Marc Shipon, of Pennsylvania, has been practicing disability law since 1992. He developed a special interest in epilepsy because he has seen how epilepsy has affected the life of his mother-in-law. Helping people obtain benefits has been a way in which Shipon has positively impacted the lives of people with epilepsy.

Shipon graduated from Villanova Law School in 1991, where he worked as an Intern in the law school’s Community Legal Services Program. It was through this experi ence that Shipon first learned about social security disability practice. He saw how he could really help people who are no longer able to work or who have children with severe impairments. He opened his law prac tice in 1993 and has been working in the field of social security and personal injury matters ever since. Shipon is the Founder and President of USDISABILITY.COM, a division of the Law Offices of Ruch & Shipon. His firm specializes in handling social security dis ability claims and appeals nationwide as well as personal injury and wrongful death claims. For more information about his firm, see

Shipon has represented individuals referred by the Fund. One case involved a client who had been physically beaten, devel oped seizures, and became homeless for a while. Shipon was able to obtain benefits for her; she is no longer homeless and receives a decent income. In another matter, a person contacted the Fund seeking assistance on behalf of her sister, who had been denied social security benefits. Shipon guided this family through the long appeal process. He was eventually successful at obtaining benefits for the client.

In addition to maintaining a successful law practice, Shipon is a sustaining member of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives and a supporter of the Epilepsy Foundation, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the AIDS Law Project. The Epilepsy Foundation appreciates Shipon’s commitment to helping people with epilepsy.

The Legal Defense Fund Helps File and Resolve Major Discrimination Cases

The following are some cases and advocacy initiatives in which the Fund has provided support to attorneys assisting persons with epilepsy fight discrimination. For more information about these and other cases handled by the Fund’s cooperating attorneys, and for copies of briefs and other litigation documents, contact the Fund at

Brown v. White River Township Fire Protection District. Brown, a Fire Prevention Chief, expe rienced a seizure on duty in 2008 but was not diagnosed with epilepsy until May 2009. After being examined, he was cleared to return to duty by his personal doctor and the company’s doctor. However, he was placed on administrative, leave for disciplinary reasons (allegedly for conduct related to his disability). Brown requested reasonable accommodations; how ever the request was denied without explanation. After his official diagnosis of epilepsy in May 2009, he was again cleared to return to work, but his employer failed to reinstate him. A Defense Fund network attorney filed suit on Brown’s behalf in federal court alleging that the employer failed to engage in the interac- tive process as required by the ADA.

Brandt v. University of Colorado Hospital. Brandt was denied a position as a surgical technician with the hospi- tal after disclosing her medical history of seizures. Although her condition is well controlled, the offer of employment was rescinded because of her history of seizures. A Legal Defense Fund network attorney filed a charge of disability discrimination with the EEOC and a civil suit asserting violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The cases are pending.

Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association. The Fund joined an amicus brief with other disability rights organizations to address the blanket exclusion rule upheld by the 9th Circuit. In this case, at issue is the defendant’s hiring pol- icy to permanently exclude any applicant for employ- ment as a longshoreman if he screened positive for drugs or alcohol at any time during an application process. Lopez screened positive in 1997 and reapplied after he was clean and sober in 2004. He was excluded because of this one-strike policy. A copy of the brief can be reviewed on resources/epilepsy/attyresources.

In re: C.G. C.G. was employed with a tire and auto shop. His position required him to drive cars in the bay area of the shop for service. C.G. was placed on unpaid adminis- trative leave after he experienced a seizure and was restricted from driving for six months in accordance with state law. Although C.G. made proposed accommoda- tions, the employer failed to engage in the interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation as pre- scribed under the ADA. The Fund provided resources to C.G.’s attorney to assist with the filing of the EEOC charge. The matter was settled at mediation.

Arrest for Seizure Related Behavior

In re: T.C. The Fund provided legal resources to the attorney of T.C., who experienced a seizure at home and emergency medical services (EMS) were called. Upon arrival of EMS, T.C. was wandering in his yard in a pos- tictal state. Police officers allegedly immediately shot him with a taser and beat him with a club. Criminal charges, which were originally filed against him, were later dropped; however, T.C. pursued a civil claim for police misconduct. The matter was settled prior to litigation.

In re: P.A. P.A. was being treated by paramedics for a seizure. While in a postictal state, he ran from his house and commandeered the ambulance. He was charged criminally. The Fund provided resources to P.A.’s attorney who was able to get the charges dismissed.

Access to Medication in Childcare

Rutherford v. U.S. Army. In 2008, a large child care pro- gram run by the Army at Fort Campbell in Kentucky refused to allow its staff to administer emergency antiepileptic medication to a three-year old boy, whose father was an officer stationed at the base. After the Fund’s efforts to resolve the situation through educational efforts with the base failed, the Fund referred the matter to the Kentucky Protection and Advocacy System, which filed a lawsuit against the Army alleging that its refusal to administer the medication violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits disability-based dis- crimination by federal agencies. The case was settled. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Prisoner’s Rights/ Medication

Galindo v. Reeves County, et. al. In November 2007, Galindo was sentenced to a 30 month prison term. Galindo disclosed his epileptic condition to prison officials and it was documented by medical staff during his intake. After his arrival, his medication was switched from Topamax to Dilantin, which is a less expensive antiseizure medication. During the period of his incarceration, Galindo missed several dosages of medication despite the pleas from his family and other advocates. The complaint states that Galindo’s records indicate the prison failed to provide approximately 90 doses of his medication. It fur- ther indicates that Galindo was punitively isolated by prison officials for complaining about the deficient medical care. He experienced a fatal seizure in isolation and died. To review a copy of the civil complaint, see www.epilepsy-

Other Cases of Interest

R.K., et al. v. Board. of Edu. of Scott County Kentucky. R.K., a student with diabetes who requires administration of insulin during the school day, alleged that the school board violated R.K.’s federally protected rights by transferring him away from his neighborhood school and requiring him to attend a school with a full-time nurse on staff. The school district rejected R.K.’s request that a volunteer employee at his neighborhood school be trained to help him with his insulin administration. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted the school board’s motion for summary judgment on all of Discrimination Cases.

R.K.’s claims. In an amicus brief filed on June 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the dis- trict court failed to apply the correct legal standards in analyzing whether the school district complied with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act’s free appropriate public education (FAPE) and general non-discrimination require- ments. In particular, the DOJ asserted that the school dis- trict was required to make an individualized, pre-placement evaluation of R.K.’s specific needs, and was not permitted to base the placement decision on a blanket policy or administrative convenience. The case, which is on appeal, is pending. To review a copy of the civil complaint, see attyresources.

Nohrenberg, et al. v. Linn County, et al. Two inmates from Linn County Jail filed suit against the facility for switching their mental health medications despite observations and recommendations by doctors. Both inmates suffered deterio- ration of their health conditions and were unable to aid in the defense of their criminal cases. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the inmates by Disability Rights Oregon. The case was settled. To review a copy of the civil complaint, see

Long & Short Term Disability Insurance & Social Security Disability Legal Help

The Social Security disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security income disability (SSDI) programs provide assistance to people who cannot work due to a disability. Benefits are paid by the Social Security Administration (SSA) on a regular, recurring basis for as long as the claimant is unable to work. In these claims, have to be “expected” to be unable to sustain full time employment due to your medical conditions for at least a 12 month period in order to be eligible for SSD or SSI. If however you have short term disability coverage from your employer, you do not have to be disabled for a 12 month period, it could be for a shorter period.

However, obtaining disability benefits is far from easy. If you were recently denied your Social Security Disability or your long term or short term disability insurance from your employer, by one of the following disability insurance companies:

  • Unum
  • Progressive
  • MetLife
  • Mercury
  • Travelers
  • The Hartford Cigna
  • Guardian
  • Prudential
  • Aetna
  • Northwest Mutual
  • and others…


Our practice and associated law firms have successfully helped thousands of disabled clients in obtaining long-term disability, short-term disability, and Social Security disability benefits. How?

About two-thirds of all SSD and SSDI applications are initially denied by the SSA and insurance companies. While many claimants give up here, you actually have the option of appealing your claim. Since many initial applications get thrown out simply because of an error or a missing component, claimants tend to be far more successful on their second try.

To successfully appeal your case, however, you must act fast. There are very strict deadlines to appeal your case—typically, you have 60 days or so from the date you receive your denial notice (the exact information on how and when to appeal should be included in the notice).

Thousands of disabled people give up and don’t appeal when they could have eventually been granted valuable monthly benefits and health insurance coverage through Social Security had they taken the time to file an appeal. If you miss your deadline you may not be eligible, so make sure to stay on top of this if your claim has been denied.

While you do have the option of appealing your case on your own, if your claim has already been denied once it will likely benefit you to hire a lawyer. An experienced Social Security disability lawyer can ensure everything is filled out correctly, all the relevant medical records and other documentation are present, and everything is submitted on time. An attorney will also argue your case in front of a judge if a hearing is required. Having legal help on your side will practically guarantee you receive the benefits you need on your second try.

The bottom line is IF YOU HAVE A SEVERE MEDICAL CONDITION, PHYSICAL OR MENTAL, AND YOU TRULY BELIEVE YOU ARE UNABLE TO RETURN TO WORK, YOU SHOULD APPEAL YOUR CASE. Continue to go to your doctor and make sure you are tested! If your medical records show your disability prevents you from working, there is no reason you should not be entitled to federal benefits.

Our Philadelphia Social Security disability lawyers are prepared to fight for the benefits you deserve. There is never an upfront fee for our help—we are only paid when you win your benefits! Call today at (215) 708-1234 or contact us online for more information.Categories

How to Appeal a Social Security Disability Denial

If you are over 50 and were recently denied Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), DON’T GIVE UP! Receiving a notice that your claim for SSDI or SSI benefits has been denied can be disheartening, but you still have plenty of options to get help. Our Philadelphia Social Security Disability lawyers explain how to appeal an SSDI or SSI denial.

The SSDI & SSI Appeals Process

Did you know that most SSDI and SSI applications are denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA)? In fact, two-thirds of all initial disability applications made in the United States are rejected. Reconsiderations are denied at an even higher rate—up to 87%.

This means that appeals are a regular part of the application process. Typically, there are four levels of the SSDI appeals process, which are:

  • Reconsideration
  • Hearing before an administrative law judge
  • Review by the SSA Appeals Council
  • A final Federal Court review

Now for the good news: The rate of SSDI application denials is much lower following a hearing—only 35% of all claims are denied at this stage. Why? There are a number of potential reasons, but perhaps the most influential is having the chance to enlist a qualified medical professional and/or a lawyer to argue your case in front of a judge.

If you have a serious physical medical condition that has been tested and confirmed and your doctor (especially a specialist) is willing to support that you are expected not to be able to return to employment for at least a 12 month period, there is absolutely no reason not to appeal your case. Based on disability laws, your chances of successfully making it through the appeals process are better when you are over 50 than when you are under 50.

If you have recently received a denial notice on your SSDI benefits application, here is what you can do to appeal your claim:

  • Within 60 days of receiving your denial notice, submit a request for an appeal in writing to the SSA
  • Wait to receive a decision from the reconsideration process, which will be mailed to your home
  • If your appeal is denied again, you can request a hearing by following the instructions given in the notice provided with the reconsideration verdict
    • You will also have the chance to submit new evidence that can help your claim
  • Attend the hearing on your own or with a qualified Social Security disability attorney
  • Wait to receive a decision based on the hearing, which will be mailed to your home
  • If you disagree with the hearing’s decision, you may ask for a review by Social Security’s Appeals Council
  • Wait to receive a decision from the Appeals Council, which will be mailed to your home
  • If you disagree with the Appeals Council’s decision—or if the Appeals Council decided not to review your case—you may file a lawsuit in a federal district court

You can read more about the SSA’s disability benefits appeals process here. While you can accomplish this process on your own, it can be streamlined with the help of an attorney.

How an SSDI Benefits Attorney Can help

Disability claimants should never give up on an SSDI or SSI claim. The sooner you appeal, the sooner SSA will schedule a hearing, giving you a better chance at winning your claim and promptly getting the benefits you deserve. However, we do recommend consulting with an experienced Social Security disability attorney before submitting your appeal.

Even if you ultimately choose not to attend a hearing or end up not needing to take legal action against the SSA, a Social Security disability attorney can provide you with insight into how to best file an appeal to increase your chances for success. Even better, most lawyers offer free consultations—including us!

An attorney can inform you of your rights and answer your questions about the appeals process during the initial consultation. If you choose to seek further assistance, a lawyer can also submit your appeal and any related documents on your behalf as well as represent you during a hearing. In fact, your chances for approval are generally higher at the hearing level, especially with legal representation. Our firm has also been successful in getting appeals approved even sooner at times as well.

Remember, DON’T LOSE HOPE IF YOUR INITIAL CLAIM WAS DENIED. Most claims are refused the first time around simply due to a lack of medical evidence or because of a small mistake. There’s a very good chance your appeal will be successful, especially if you have legal counsel on your side.

If you were recently denied SSDI benefits, you only have 60 days to appeal. We can help! Contact a Philadelphia Social Security disability attorney at the Shipon Law Associates, P.C. online or at (215) 708-1234 to set up your FREE, no-obligation case evaluation.

COVID-19 & Social Security Disability

If you or a loved one with a significant underlying medical condition has contracted COVID-19, the novel coronavirus, and you have or possibly may be out of work for at least a 12-month period due to your symptoms, you may want to consider applying for Social Security disability—especially if you are over 50. The benefits can greatly help you and your family get through the period you are out of work, especially as the economy suffers during this global pandemic. Our Philadelphia Social Security disability lawyers explain the benefits of filing a claim.

Social Security Disability Benefits

Under the Social Security Administration (SSA), you are eligible to receive benefits if you have a total disability—this means partial or short-term disabilities are ineligible. The SSA’s definition of a disability is based on how your injury or condition affects your ability to work and provide for yourself and your family financially. Major medical disabilities are generally defined as illnesses, injuries, and conditions which will not heal in 12 months or are expected to result in the patient’s death.

Examples of such disabilities include:

  • Blood disorders
  • Cancer
  • Kidney failure
  • Lupus
  • Mental disorders
  • Multiple sclerosis (MS)
  • Musculoskeletal conditions
  • Neurological conditions

COVID-19 doesn’t seriously affect most people who get it, but for individuals already suffering from conditions such as those listed above, the disease can be life-threatening. The medical bills for fighting COVID-19, as well as the condition already present, can add up significantly. Therefore, applying for benefits may be your only way to pay your medical bills.

Though SSA offices are currently closed to prevent further spread of the coronavirus, their services remain available online. By submitting an application online or over the phone, you could be entitled to up to $2700 a month plus medical coverage.

Don’t delay as every month you wait could cost you thousands of dollars in benefits you could have received. Contact the SSA now if you or a loved one with a disabling medical condition has been diagnosed with the coronavirus.

Appealing a Denied Claim

If you filed a Social Security disability claim that was recently denied don’t give up—you only have 60 days to appeal or you will have to start the process all over again.

At Shipon Law Associates, P.C., our skilled attorneys can help assist you with your denied claim appeal at no upfront cost to you. If we win your appeal, our fee is paid out of the retroactive benefits, so you don’t ever have to pay us out of your own pocket.

Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions about Social Security benefits or would like to appeal a denied claim. Our Philadelphia Social Security disability lawyers remain available for online and phone consultations. Contact us today!

Why You Shouldn’t Give Up After Your Social Security Disability Application Gets Denied

As a person in need of Social Security disability benefits, one of the most difficult things to cope with is when your SSDI application process gets denied. You may feel disappointed, anxious, and out of options. You’re not alone in your situation – in fact, most people who apply for Social Security disability are denied the first time.

If your disability claim has been denied, the good news is that you can apply for an appeal. Our Social Security disability lawyers have helped countless clients file thousands of appeals successfully, which have gone on to be approved. If you truly believe you’re unable to work due to your medical conditions, you shouldn’t give up after your application has been denied.

Why Your Application Was Denied

In most cases, Social Security disability applications are denied due to a lack of convincing information in applicants’ medical records.

If your application was denied, before you file an appeal, take the time to ask yourself the following questions to learn what you can include in your appeal:

  • Was all your medical treatment documented? – Did you indicate the addresses of your medical providers and names of your physicians? This information is important for disability examiners to collect.
  • Was there enough medical evidence? – Your records need to be detailed and substantial, and unfortunately, the quality of your medical reporting falls onto your physician.
  • Were there any “bad facts” on your application? – “Bad facts” that may hurt your application include a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or test results that show you don’t meet disability requirements.

Appeals: Your Best Chance at Winning

Unfortunately, most disability claims that are denied aren’t appealed. Applicants either give up on their applications, file appeals after the deadline, or file a brand-new claim. By not taking the time to appeal, you lose your appeal rights, and will need to start off at the beginning again with a new application.

Don’t give up on your application – you have 60 days to file an appeal. With the help of a disability lawyer, you can file an appeal quickly while knowing that it was also filed correctly. Our team can help you if you need to appeal or start a new application. Our goal is to help you receive the benefits you deserve as soon as possible, and we never charge a fee for our services unless you win. You shouldn’t have to suffer more than you already have from your medical conditions.

Guiding You Through the Process

The Social Security disability application process can be complicated, which is why it’s beneficial for you to have a lawyer who understands the process and can guide you through it. You don’t need to give up just yet. At Shipon Law Associates, P.C., we can help you fill out your forms properly, make an appeal if your application was denied the first time, and decide which program is the right one for you and your unique situation.

Our attorneys understand that clients applying for Social Security disability may be unable to leave the house to meet with us, which is why we offer complimentary phone and webcam consultations. We strive to provide convenience at every step of the process and go above and beyond to make sure our clients’ needs come first.

If you need help with your SSDI or SSI claim or appeal, look no further than our caring Social Security disability lawyers. Call Shipon Law Associates, P.C. today at (215) 708-1234, or contact us online for a free consultation. We’re here to help you secure a better future.

What To Do Immediately After a Slip and Fall Accident in a Store or an Apartment Complex

If you or a loved one slipped and fell in a store, apartment, city property or street and were injured, if possible at the time of the incident try to take photographs of the exact spot that caused you to fall and anything that could have contributed to the dangerous condition. For example, if there was a wet spot on the store floor, look around to see if there is a leak perhaps from a freezer, broken bottle or perhaps an ac unit dripping from the ceiling from condensation. Also, report the incident to the manager of a store and get their name. If you were injured, get to the closest emergency room immediately. Also, if you see any witnesses try to get their contact information as well. Finally, call an attorney for an appointment immediately as every day that goes by could affect the case.

How To Improve Your Chances of Winning Your Disability Case

Often times a clients can win or lose their case due to the doctors they are seeing and the tests that are or are not done.  If for example a person has severe back pain and just goes to a primary care doctor and all that doctor does is provide pain medications, most likely the chances of winning will not be great.  If however, a client goes to a primary doctor and then gets referred to specialists and gets all the proper testing to prove that there is, in fact, a severe medical condition that affects workability, the chances of winning will increase. For example, if you have a severe back injury, make sure you get to an orthopedic get an MRI and possibly an EMG (if you have numbness and tingling in arms or legs). 

If you have a severe mental issue, on the other hand, get and stay in mental health treatment if you have not yet done so.  Make sure you are telling your therapist and psychiatrist or psychologist all of your mental issues and the reason you have them.

 Often times a person is afraid to tell the doctor all of there symptoms in the fear it can create a new problem. If your symptoms are not documented in the medical records, it is like a tree falling in the woods when no one is around…no one hears it so it is almost like it never happened.  If your symptoms are not well documented in the medical evidence, most often you don’t have those symptoms in the eyes of the judge and your chances of winning may decrease as a result.