This episode explores the potential pitfalls and investigative processes surrounding Social Security disability claims, emphasizing how friends, family, and acquaintances can inadvertently harm a claimant's case. Attorney Walter Hnot begins with a lawsuit example, 816-CV-2890-T-DNF, to illustrate how those close to the claimant can provide damaging information, either through misguided advice or during investigations by the Social Security Administration's OIG units. He details two common scenarios: family members offering incorrect advice about disability law and friends providing negative third-party witness statements to investigators, who often use manipulative tactics to elicit information. Against the backdrop of these potential harms, Hnot explains the five-step sequential process used to evaluate disability claims, from determining substantial gainful employment to assessing the claimant's ability to perform past relevant work and other jobs in the national economy. The discussion pivots to a specific case where a claimant's SSI application was denied due to a CDI investigative report containing statements from local shop owners and traffic violations, which contradicted the claimant's reported limitations. More significantly, the court found that the ALJ improperly admitted the CDI report because it contained unverifiable statements from unnamed witnesses, highlighting the importance of due process and the right to defend oneself against accusations. This case underscores the need for claimants to be aware of how their actions and relationships can be scrutinized and potentially undermine their disability claims.
