The test numbers looked acceptable
A result that falls short of the criteria ends the analysis for many examiners. It should not: the question after that is what you can still do all day, and that needs evidence nobody has gathered yet.
Cincinnati · Middletown · Hamilton · Dayton
Call us anytime, 24/7: 513-909-9999
Your cardiologist is asking whether your heart is stable. Social Security is asking how much work you can do. Those are not the same question.
No fee unless we win
Free consultation, no fee unless we win.
No fee unless we win
Cardiac claims are unusual on this site because the key evidence often exists before anyone thinks about a disability claim. Exercise testing measures exertional tolerance directly. Imaging measures how well the heart is pumping. Monitoring records rhythm disturbances as they happen. Very little of this depends on anybody’s description.
That sounds like it should make these claims straightforward, and sometimes it does. The difficulty is the opposite of the one on most pages: where the numbers fall short of the criteria, examiners tend to stop reading, and the rest of the picture never gets considered.
A person can be medically stable, correctly treated, told by a cardiologist that things look good, and still be unable to hold down a job. Nothing about those statements is contradictory, and a cardiac claim usually has to explain why.
Coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias, valve disease, congenital heart conditions, and claims following heart attack, bypass surgery or stent placement.
This is the argument at the center of most refused cardiac claims, and it is worth setting out plainly.
A cardiologist’s job is to keep your heart from killing you. When they say you are doing well, they mean the disease is controlled and the treatment is working. It is a genuine and important finding, and it says nothing at all about whether you can sustain eight hours of work.
Social Security is asking a different question, and the answer depends on things that are rarely in a cardiology note: how you feel by the middle of the afternoon, whether stairs are the end of your morning, how often angina interrupts what you are doing, what happens when the weather is hot, and whether the medication leaves you clear-headed enough to be useful.
Not on the diagnosis, which is undisputed. On the assumption that somebody who cannot do heavy work can do light work, made without ever asking whether they can sustain light work all day, five days a week, alongside the fatigue that heart failure produces.
Cardiac function after a major event or surgery is not fixed. Claims filed and decided during a period of recovery frequently miss the point at which it became clear how much function had returned, which is often many months later. Where a claim was refused early, that is worth revisiting rather than accepting.
Four patterns that come up repeatedly, and what answers each of them.
A result that falls short of the criteria ends the analysis for many examiners. It should not: the question after that is what you can still do all day, and that needs evidence nobody has gathered yet.
Exercise testing is done rested, supervised and at a fixed time. It measures capacity under ideal conditions, not capacity repeated daily alongside everything else a working life demands.
Records run from the event through the procedure and then thin out. What the following year looked like is usually the part that decides the claim, and it is often missing.
The standard refusal. It treats cardiac limitation as though it were purely about lifting, and ignores fatigue, breathlessness on minimal effort, and the events that happen while sitting down.
General information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. The only way to know where yours stands is to have someone look at it.
That is good news and it does not defeat the claim. Doing well means the condition is controlled. It is not a statement about whether you can work a full week, and cardiologists are not usually asked that question. Getting an opinion that addresses function specifically is one of the first things we do.
Many people do, which is why claims filed shortly after a procedure are often refused. The question is what the position looks like once the improvement has settled, and whether symptoms returned. If a claim was refused during that early period, the later record can support a fresh application.
Then the pattern is the evidence. Arrhythmias, angina episodes and periods of decompensation are episodic by nature, and a claim built only on how you are between them describes the wrong thing. Monitoring records, emergency attendances and hospital admissions all document the episodes.
That usually strengthens a claim rather than complicating it. Conditions are assessed together, and the combined effect is frequently greater than any one of them alone. Cardiac limitation plus a musculoskeletal restriction can close off the light work that would otherwise have been assumed.
Not automatically. The device is treatment, and how much it restores function varies a great deal. What matters is what you can do with it in place, including any restrictions that come with it and the effect of any shocks you have had.
Our fees are set by federal statute, are contingency only, and are the lesser of 25% not to exceed the statutory maximum of $9,200.
There is nothing to pay up front and nothing to pay if the claim does not succeed. The fee comes out of past-due benefits when they are awarded, and it has to be approved.
The conditions we have written about are the ones we are asked about most often. They are not the only ones that qualify, and the list is not a test you have to appear on.
A disability claim is decided on what your conditions do to your ability to work, not on the name of the diagnosis. Several problems that are each manageable on their own can add up to something that is not, and that combination is frequently the strongest part of a claim.
If what you have is not on this site, that tells you nothing about your claim. Tell us what you have been diagnosed with and what it stops you doing, and we will tell you honestly whether it is worth pursuing.
The rest of this practice area, in case your situation fits one of them better.
One incident can open more than one claim, and they are handled together here.
I had been denied two times for social security after life changing damages to my back, ankle and knee, had paid into social security all my life and I'm 60 years old now. Steven Casper was compassionate and thorough and walked me through the process without any money to pay him he was able to get my social security approved and every dime of back pay for those two years I had waited and has assured me that if anything comes up he's there for me.
After I spent two years in a frustrating battle with the SSA, I finally contacted Casper, Casper, & Casper, and Robin took my disability case. In about six months, Robin had won my case, along with back pay. The whole process of working with this firm was pleasant and painless. The staff was quick to respond to my many questions and also to update my changing medical information.
If you have been denied disability benefits, I would DEFINITELY RECOMMEND this lawyers office!! Robin Partin and associates worked diligently on my case and fought for me! They were my voice and I won! 10/10
I really cannot say enough about my attorney Steven Casper and his work ethic and professionalism. Also his legal assistant Ben, these two did a lot of prep work and fielding my many emails and answering my questions. Steven Casper prepped me personally for my appeal and court with an administrative law judge. This process is very slow dealing with Social Security but he kept me informed every step of the way with great detail and it played out exactly as he had described.
I can't thank Casper, Casper and Casper enough for what they did for me. From start to finish it took less than a year for them to help me get disability benefits. They did almost all of the groundwork and made it as painless for me as possible. I would highly recommend them to anyone.
If I could give a MILLION PLUS stars I DEFINITELY would!! I contacted Mr. Steve Casper to handle my SSI case. I filed at first on my own and I was denied. He was VERY professional, honest and upfront about the clients he takes. He reassured me that I DID have a strong case. I got the news today that HE won my case for me!!!!
No cost, no obligation, and no fee unless we win.
Free consultation, no fee unless we win.
No fee unless we win