Deirdre Sanders

April 19, 2008

Social Security Administration

C/O Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security

440 Altmeyer Building 6401 Security Blvd.

Baltimore, MD 21235
FAX 410-966-9973

Ref: Claimant Deirdre E. Sanders

Social Security No.# 555-29-9020

A. HISTORY

Sanders applied for SSI benefits as a disabled The claimant applied for Disability benefits under Title II, filing date on December 29,2003. Initial Application for SSI benefits was filed January 22,2004. A determination on Title XVI / TITLE II on April 16,2004 to deny benefits. Reconsideration was filed on January 4,2004. The Determination for the claimant’s application for Reconsideration was denied on October 5, 2004. A Notice The claim was denied Appeal was filed the case was remanded on August 13, 2006. of Order of Appeal was issued on July 31,2006. On October 2,2007 yet another Notice of Appeals remanding to Administrative Law Judge.

For more than half of a century, Social Security has helped disabled cope with the loss of income due to a severe disability. Unfortunately, applicants face an uphill battle simply to get a hearing before an Administrative (ALJ). For some, the long wait for their day in court leads to homelessness family and friends. Sadly, people have died waiting for a hearing.

This is America, and it simply is not acceptable for Americans to wait years for a final decision on a claim. The Agency is overdue for a change, and is committed to a process that is as fair and speedy as possible.

On February 4, 2008 my daughter forwarded Todd Garrison of Social Security Office of Disability Adjudication and Review Room 330 280 South First Street San Jose, Ca. 95113-5113. An detai;ed list of primary care physicans. Included in this information was my mother’s recent diagnosis of Celiac Disease (Irritable Bowel Syndrome). Which fall under the Compassionate Allowance Act and the News Release Social Security Updates Digestive Listings.

This determination was made by Dr. Stanley Rockman ( Endoscopy Specialist ) at San Mateo Medical Center 222 West 39^th Avenue San Mateo, Ca. 94403 and Patient Medical Record No.# 0203119.

Social Security obligation to provide benefits quickly to applicants whose medical conditions are so serious that their conditions obviously meet disability standards under the Compassionate Allowance Program.

Compassionate allowances are a purpose to be a quickly identifying diseases and other medical conditions that invariably qualify under the Listing of Impairments based on minimal objective medical information. Compassionate allowances will allow Social Security to quickly target the most obviously disabled individuals for allowances based on objective medical information that we can obtain quickly.

In Citing "White v. Finch, 311 F.Supp. 307 (D. Mass. 1970)" ANY MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL IMPAIRMENT." He contends that applying applicable grammatical rules, the word "WHICH" has reference only to "IMPAIRMENT" and does not modify the disability provisions.

The claimant had provided the court with detailed medical history and documentation of the following disabiling illnesses.

1.) CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS) and Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS)

2.) Celiac Disease ( 105.06 Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) )

3.) Glaucoma SEC. 1614. [42 U.S.C. 1382c] (a)(1) For purposes of this title, the term "aged, blind, or disabled individual"

4. ) Depressive syndrome. Evaluate under 12.04 (Affective disorders) Characterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or partial manic or depressive syndrome. sections 221(h), 221(k), and 223(d)(5) shall apply in the same manner as they apply to determinations of disability under title II.

In compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a) (2000). Accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512 (2000) (" the Claimant (Deirdre Sanders has provided medical evidence showing that you have impairment(s) and how severe it is during the time you say you are disabled" ).

Significant enough to satisfy, SEC. 1614. [42 U.S.C. 1382c] (a)(1) (G) In determining whether an individual's physical or mental impairment or impairments are of a sufficient medical severity that such impairment or impairments could be the basis of eligibility under this section, the Commissioner of Social Security shall consider the combined effect of all of the individual's impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of such severity.

On the face it appears that Social Security is attempting to eliminate an indefinite provision, the 1965 amendment proposed by the House of Representatives provided that such benefits would be payable to a claimant who had been totally disabled for at least six months, even though it was expected that he would recover in the foreseeable future.

NOTE: On February 14, 2007 the he claimant ask the judge he could also have some one examine her hands. ( Lifting her hands up so the judge could see the Inflammation that the claimants has to content with on a daily basis.) That request was abruptly denied by Judge Rogzen.

In a desperate attempt by the claimant to obtain some much need medical treatment for some chronic health problems.

Judge Rogozan responded, " I’m not a doctor I can’t make a determination about your hands." " SSR 96-3p, "Titles II and XVI: Considering Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in Determining Whether a Medically Determinable Impairment is Severe," SSR 96-4p, "

Judge Rogozen may not be a doctor but he should be well versed on the following sections of the Social Security Administration Codes: SSR 99-2p: POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING TITLES II AND XVI: EVALUATING CASES INVOLVING CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS).

And SSR 99-2p: POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING TITLES II AND XVI: EVALUATING CASES INVOLVING CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS).

Under the CDC definition, the hallmark of CFS is the presence of clinically evaluated, persistent or relapsing chronic fatigue that is of new or definite onset (i.e., has not been lifelong), cannot be explained by another physical or mental disorder, is not the result of ongoing exertion, is not substantially alleviated by rest, and results in substantial reduction in previous levels of occupational, educational, social, or personal activities.

CFS can also exhibit a wide range of other manifestations, such as muscle weakness, swollen underarm (axillary) glands, sleep disturbances, visual difficulties (trouble focusing or severe photosensitivity), orthostatic intolerance (e.g.,lightheadedness or increased fatigue with prolonged standing), other neurocognitive problems (e.g., difficulty comprehending and processing information), fainting, dizziness, and mental problems (e.g., depression, irritability, anxiety). (Garza v. Barnhart, No. 04-2123, F.3d 8th Cir., Feb. 15, 2005)

Fibromyalgia is also recognized disability and all authorities agree that if the condition is severe enough, disability benefits can be obtained.

There are several sources of disability payments: Social Security disability, state disability programs (California and New Jersey), long term disability (LTD) available under group insurance plans; and individual disability income insurance purchased directly from insurers, which pays a fixed monthly indemnity in the event of sickness or accident causing an inability to work.

Regardless of which type of claim is pursued, to establish an entitlement to benefits, it is necessary to meet either a statutory or contractual definition of disability.

SSR 96-4p: POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING TITLES II AND XVI : SYMPTOMS, MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENTS, AND EXERTIONAL AND NONEXERTIONAL LIMITATIONS

CITATIONS (AUTHORITY): Sections 216(i), 223(d) and 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, sections 404.1505, 404.1508, 404.1520, 404.1528(a), 404.1529, 404.1569a and subpart P, appendix 2; and Regulations No. 16, sections 416.905, 416.908, 416.920, 416.924, 416.928(a), 416.929 and 416.969a.

While SSR 99-2p: POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING TITLES II AND XVI: EVALUATING CASES INVOLVING CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS) cites the following authorities:

CITATIONS (AUTHORITY):

Sections 216(i), 223(d), 223(f), 1614(a)(3) and 1614(a)(4) of the Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart P, sections 404.1505, 404.1508-404.1513, 404.1520, 404.1520a, 404.1521, 404.1523, 404.1526-404.1529, 404.1560-404.1569a and 404.1593-404.1594; and Regulations No. 16, subpart I, sections 416.905, 416.906, 416.908-416.913, 416.920, 416.920a, 416.921, 416.923, 416.924, 416.924b, 416.924c, 416.926, 416.926a, 416.927-416.929, 416.960-416.969a, 416.987, 416.993, 416.994, and 416.994a.

There is considerable overlap of symptoms between CFS and Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS).

Thus Fibromyalgia Syndrome(FMS) can be directly linked to Celiac Disease ( 105.06 Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Which the claimant has been recently diagnosed by:

San Mateo Medical Center

Dr. Stanley Rockman ( Endoscopy Specialist )

222West 39^th Avenue

San Mateo, Ca. 94403

Patient Medical Record No.# 0203119

105.06 Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) documented by endoscopy, biopsy, appropriate medically acceptable imaging, or operative findings According to title Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Interstitial Cystitis

It’s Purpose is to provide guidance on SSA policy concerning the development and evaluation of interstitial cystitis (IC) in disability claims filed under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act).

Citations: Sections 216(i), 223(d), 223(f), 1614(a), and 1614(c) of the Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart P, sections 404.1502, 404.1505, 404.1508, 404.1509, 404.1511, 404.1512, 404.1513, 404.1520, 404.1520a, 404.1521, 404.1523, 404.1525, 404.1526, 404.1528, 404.1529, 404.1530, 404.1545, 404.1546, 404.1561, 404.1594, and appendix 1; and Regulations No. 16, subpart I, sections 416.902, 416.905, 416.906, 416.908, 416.909, 416.911, 416.912, 416.913, 416.920, 416.920a, 416.921, 416.923, 416.924, 416.925, 416.926, 416.926a, 416.928, 416.929, 416.930, 416.945, 416.946, 416.961, 416.994, and 416.994a.

The Act and our implementing regulations require that an individual establish disability based on the existence of a medically determinable impairment; that is, one that can be shown by medical evidence, consisting of symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings. Disability may not be established on the basis of an individual's statement of symptoms alone.

This Ruling explains that IC (a complex, chronic bladder disorder), when accompanied by appropriate symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings, is a medically determinable impairment that can be the basis for a finding of "disability." It also provides guidance for the evaluation of claims involving IC.

Policy Interpretation

What Is IC?

IC is a complex, chronic bladder disorder characterized by urinary frequency, urinary urgency, and pelvic pain. IC occurs most frequently in women (about 10 times more often than in men), and sometimes prior to age 18. IC may be associated with other disorders, such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, allergies, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, endometriosis, and vulvodynia (vulvar/vaginal pain). IC also may be associated with systemic lupus erythematosus.

What Is a Medically Determinable Impairment?

Sections 216(i) and 1614(a)(3) of the Act define "disability"¹ as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment (or combination of impairments) which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.%ä2¼

SEC. 1614. [42 U.S.C. 1382c] (a)(1) (G) In determining whether an individual's physical or mental impairment or impairments are of a sufficient medical severity that such impairment or impairments could be the basis of eligibility under this section, the Commissioner of Social Security shall consider the combined effect of all of the individual's impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of such severity.

Even If your vision does not meet the legal definition of blindness, you may still qualify for disability benefits if your vision problems alone or combined with other health problems prevents you from working.

Glaucoma would be defined as a dilated eye Section 1862(s) of the Social Security Act Medicare coverage for annual glaucoma screening for persons determined to be at high risk for glaucoma, individuals with a family history of glaucoma, and individuals with diabetes or myopia. A screening for glaucoma would be defined as a dilated eye examination with an intraocular pressure measurement and a direct opthalmoscopy or slit-lamp biomicroscopic examination for the early detection of glaucoma.

The technical description as outlined in SEC. 1614. [42 U.S.C. 1382c] (a)(1) as (Aged, Blind, or Disabled Individual ) For purposes of this title, the term "aged, blind, or disabled individual" means an individual who. See (Glaucoma VISUAL FIELD TEST Diagnosis) in his final decision.. See Harman, 211 F.3d at 1176 n.5)

Visual disorders are to be considered severe when these test results are consistent with the other evidence in your case record. (See §§404.1520, 404.1521, 416.920, and 416.921.)

Open-angle glaucoma can affect anyone, it is most prevalent in Blacks over age 40 and anyone over age 60. As people grow older, age-related changes in the eyes make them more susceptible to open-angle glaucoma.

The National Eye Institute-supported Baltimore Eye Survey shows that by age 70, about one in 50 Whites will have the disease. In Blacks, the problem is more severe.

For example:

1. Blacks are three to four times more likely to develop open-angle glaucoma than Whites.

Open-angle glaucoma develops earlier in Blacks--around age 40--than in Whites, and progresses more rapidly. By age 70, one in eight Blacks has the disease.

Open-angle glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness among Blacks. In fact, Blacks are about six times more likely to become blind from the disease than Whites.

Conclusion

News Release Social Security Updates Digestive Listings and the Federal regulations include a list of impairments sufficiently severe that an individual qualifies for benefits. See Appendix 1 to 20 C.F.R. § 404 (2000); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525 (2000)

Sections 216(i) and 1614(a)(3) of the Act define "disability" define a Medically Determinable Impairment as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment (or combination of impairments) which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.

Sections 223(d)(3) and 1614(a)(3)(D) of the Act and 20 CFR 404.1508 and 416.908 require that an impairment result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. The Act and regulations further require that an impairment be established by medical evidence that consists of symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings, and not only by an individual's statement of symptoms.

The Secretary's decision, the record contains medical evidence which indicates claimant is not completely disabled. While it is true that there is evidence which could support a contrary conclusion, it is up to the Secretary to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and the Court should not substitute its own judgement. Jacobs v. Finch, 421 F.2d 843 (9th Cir. 1970).

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B) (Supp. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (2000). Impairments are severe if they significantly limit a person' s "physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) (2000).

Conclusion

SSR 83-46c: SECTIONS 216(i) AND 223(d) (42 U.S.C. 416(i) AND 423 (d)) DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- INABILITY TO PERFORM PREVIOUS WORK -- ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE UNDER THE MEDICAL- VOCATIONAL GUIDELINES OF THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER WORK

20 CFR 404.1560-404.1569 SSR 83-46c (This ruling supersedes SSR 82-33c) Heckler v. Campbell, U.S._, 103 S.Ct. 1952 (1983) the Court concluded, is to provide a procedural safeguard to ensure the accuracy of the facts of which an agency takes notice.

SSR 96-3p: POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING TITLES II AND XVI: CONSIDERING ALLEGATIONS OF PAIN AND OTHER SYMPTOMS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A MEDICALLY DETERMINABLE IMPAIRMENT IS SEVERE

20 CFR 404.1560-404.1569 SSR 83-46c (This ruling supersedes SSR 82-33c )Heckler v. Campbell, U.S., 103 S. Ct. 1952 (1983) The Court concluded, is to provide a procedural safeguard to ensure the accuracy of the facts of which an agency takes notice. The Supreme Court founds that when the accuracy of those facts has been fairly tested during rulemaking, the rulemaking proceeding itself provides sufficient procedural protection.

Held, the medical-vocational guidelines do not conflict with the Social Security Act, nor are they arbitrary and capricious.

The Supreme Court further found that, in enacting section 4(b) of the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Congress expressed its approval of the severity regulation both in the statute and in the accompanying legislative reports, recognizing that, in making an initial determination of medical severity, the Secretary need not consider the claimant's vocational factors unless he finds "a medically severe combination of impairments."

The Supreme Court also concluded that the severity regulation increases the efficiency and reliability of the disability evaluation process by identifying at an early stage those claimants whose medical impairments are so slight that it is unlikely they would be found disabled even if their vocational factors were taken into account. SSR96-05-di-01.html

In upholding the validity of the severity regulation, the Supreme Court held that the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and remanded the case for the court of appeals to consider whether the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Titles II and XVI: Symptoms, Medically Determinable Physical and Mental Impairments, and Exertional and Nonexertional Limitations,"

Where the record overwhelmingly supports a disability finding a THIRD REMAND would merely delay the receipt of benefits to which plaintiff is entitled, reversal is appropriate. See, e.g., Andler v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1289, 1394 (8th Cir. 1996); Fowler v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 249, 253 (8th Cir.1989).

Respectfully submitted,

Deirdre Sanders (Daughter)

C/O Rasheedah Noble

Attachments: SSI Appeals Remand