Nassau COBA

Nassau COBA Retains MDASR as Disability Counsel

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 Nassau COBA‘s Board of Governors unanimously voted to retain Sean Riordan and the Law Firm of McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson & Riordan to act as disability counsel for Nassau Corrections Officer Benevolent Association.

MDASR has represented Nassau COBA members in their claims for Workers’ Compensation, Disability Pensions, and Social Security Disability benefits for well over a decade. Over the years we have worked hand-in-hand with Nassau COBA to create a “visitors ¾ bill”, successfully opposed unfair Workers’ Compensation law changes and lobbied for additional benefits for 9/11 First Responders. During this partnership MDASR has been at the forefront of litigation that has expanded the parameters of coverage for Officers claiming ¾ injuries under 607-C of the Retirement & Social Security Law and has created legal precedent which helps Correction Officers throughout the State of New York.

Effective October 1, 2019, as Disability Counsel MDASR will:

  • Waive representation fee ($2,000 savings) for Nassau COBA members for on-the-job occurrences that have a NYS Workers’ Compensation claim
  • Waive representation fee ($2,000 savings) for COBA members who have a permanent injury or illness unrelated to their employment.
  • Help draft and lobby disability legislation on the federal, state and local levels.
  • Provide COBA members 24-Hour Access to an MDASR attorney in the event of an emergency related to the injury of a member.
  • Provide Nassau COBA members free disability consultations.

MDASR looks forward to working with Nassau COBA and providing them with Workers’ Compensation, Social Security Disability and Disability Pension representation.

Line of duty officers

New Bill to Protect Families of Line of Duty Tragedies

Partner Sean Riordan has worked closely with State Sen. Andrew Gounardes, NYC DEA VP Paul DiGiacomo and line of duty widow, Pai Xia Chen to pass a new bill that would ensure the children of uniformed personnel born after their death, with reproductive technology, are covered under their Social Security Benefits.

Detective Wenjian Liu was fatally shot in 2014 in an ambush that resulted in his and his partner Rafael Ramos untimely death. Det. Liu’s wife of three months had his sperm preserved the night of the incident. She gave birth to his miracle child with the help of in-vitro fertilization in 2017. After applying for Social Security benefits to support their daughter, she was denied under federal law. Currently, New York’s inheritance laws do not include children that are conceived this way and do not recognize the child as his “biological” child. Det. Liu did not give written consent for the use of his sperm or file with the Surrogate Court within 7 months of his death. Therefore, his daughter is not legally protected under his benefits.

The Detectives Endowment Association, Sen. Gounardes, Sean Riordan and Paul DiGiacomo worked tirelessly to create a bill that would include children born this way to be covered under their parents’ benefits. They argue that the federal law must change and evolve with the technology that is now available in reproductive assistance. Allowing widows to create the family with their deceased spouses and legally acknowledging them as biological children who automatically receive benefits.

We thank Senator Gounardes for working with us on this legislation and making it a priority to protect uniformed personnel and their families. We look forward to working with Assemblyman Abbate to pass the bill and fight for the rights of these line of duty children.

To read the full article click here

Initial Injury Reports Matter, Do Them Properly!


By: Sean Riordan, Esq.

Each and every time that I speak to union members throughout New York I harp on the importance of properly filling out the initial injury reports following an on-the-job occurrence. Recently a member said to me that they had “heard me give this speech a hundred times” to which I replied, “it’s as true today as it was the first time you heard it.” Helping me prove my point, just last month the Appellate Division again affirmed the tantamount importance of a Correction Officer’s initial injury report in the case of Hernandez v. New York City Employees’ Retirement System (“NYCERS”). While the lesson may be old and repetitive, it bears repeating.

In Hernandez v. NYCERS a NYC Correction Officer claimed to have been injured when an “inmate pushed her.” Ordinarily, this “act of an inmate” is sufficient to qualify a Correction Officer for a three-quarters (3/4’s) disability pension. However, as we have seen many times, NYCERS denied the Officer’s ¾’s application because the “contemporaneous documentation”, i.e. the initial injury reports, did not mention that the officer had been pushed by the inmate. The Court specifically wrote:

“Contrary to the [officer’s] contention, [NYCERS] was not required, as a matter of law, to credit her testimony that her injury occurred when she was pushed by an inmate. Indeed, her testimony conflicted with the account of the accident that was given in written reports that were prepared in connection with the incident. Inconsistencies between a petitioner’s sworn testimony and written documents present a credibility issue for the factfinder to resolve.”

Put plainly, this means that NYCERS does not have to accept as truthful a later, not previously documented description of how an injury occurred. It also means that the Court gives NYCERS extreme deference in determining which version of events they choose to believe, the initial injury report descriptions or a subsequent description of the occurrence. It is no secret which of these two choices NYCERS will choose. In fact, the NYCERS Summary Plan description for NYC Correction Officers explicitly states:

The NYCERS Medical Board and Board of Trustees are likely to believe that disability reports filed as soon as possible after an accident or other event have greater credibility than reports filed after a delay.”

Importantly, the credibility that NYCERS gives these reports is not contained to the inmate’s actions, but also to injury sites. NYCERS will look to these initial injury reports to determine what was injured during the inmate occurrence. If the initial reports do not contain the injury site that now disables you, NYCERS will not consider the injury related to the occurrence. Far too often officers feel extreme pain in one area of their body following an occurrence and only “minor” pain in others. Although the officer fully documents the area that is causing them a lot of immediate pain, they fail to include these other “minor” areas in their reports. Unfortunately, these other “minor injuries” frequently become more severe over time but NYCERS will not consider them related to the occurrence because they were not documented at the time of the injury.

Hernandez also makes clear that the “action” of an inmate is important when determining if an officer qualifies for ¾’s. The Court stated that “the mere fact that the [officer] was injured while she was in the presence of an inmate, or while she was engaged in providing a service for the benefit of an inmate, is insufficient” to qualify for ¾’s coverage. The courts have held that an inmate must perform an “affirmative act” that leads to an officer’s injury in order for coverage to apply.

Two simple rules emerge from the Hernandez case and other cases like it:

1) If an inmate was involved in your injury, fully document what action the inmate took that led to your injury. Fully describe what the inmate did that caused you harm;

2) Take a physical inventory or your body following an occurrence and document each and every body part that hurts in the initial paperwork, don’t overlook an injury site simply because you believe it is “minor.” If it hurts, put it down.

Lastly, if you fail to fully describe how the inmate caused your injury, or failed to put an injury site down on the initial injury report, you can and should use your filings with the NYS Workers’ Compensation Board to correct the record. Understandably, immediately after an injury officers are consumed by the pain they are feeling and/or are anxious about the events that just transpired. This can lead to mistakes/omissions in the initial injury report filled out for the Department. This is why filing your NYS Workers’ Compensation Forms as soon as possible after an occurrence is so important. If filed immediately after an injury, these reports can also be viewed as “contemporaneous documentation” of an event or injury. Use these forms to also fully explain the events that led to your injury and any additional sites of injury which you may have neglected to put down on the initial reports.

As always, if you have any problems, issues, concerns or questions I am always here to discuss the case with you. You can reach me any time at (212) 612-3198 or

Stay Safe!


Attorney Advertising.



By:       Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq.

I have received several calls and inquiries regarding the “new Social Security Administration Regulations” regarding firearm possession/purchase for those receiving Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits. To that effect, the Social Security Administration has implemented, as of December 19, 2016, new regulations regarding gun possession/purchase by some SSD recipients. As many of my clients are retired uniformed personnel who retain weapons into retirement I certainly understand the anxiety that hearing this news has caused. HOWEVER, Social Security’s new regulations effect very few SSD recipients and will not interfere with the large majority of retired officers’ ability to retain their weapons while receiving Social Security Disability benefits.

The background of the new Social Security regulations is important to understand. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (“Brady Act”) was passed in 1994 and called for the U.S. Attorney General to set up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”), allowing for the immediate background check of those wishing to purchase a firearm. In 2007 Congress determined that the NICS program was not operating properly and passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (“NIAA”). The NIAA required federal agencies that had “any record demonstrating” that a person fits into one of the restricted categories of the Brady Act such agency must provide the Attorney General with its information.

Relevant to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and our discussion here, the Brady Act prohibits “a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted to a mental institution” from “possessing, shipping/transporting or receiving any firearm or ammunition.” Therefore the SSA was charged with determining whether it had any information regarding individuals who had been “adjudicated as a mental defective.” Clearly, the SSA does, within the confines of its disability programs, make decisions regarding whether individuals are capable of performing “substantial gainful activity.” Often, as part of these disability determinations, SSD applicants raise psychological impairments which they believe impact their ability to work. However, a mere finding that a psychological impairment has an impact on one’s ability to work does not mean they have been determined to be a “mentally defective” individual. Therefore the SSA came up with a reasonable system in which it meets its obligations under NIAA, while not reporting every SSD recipient with a psychological impairment to the Attorney General. That system is encapsulated in its new rules.

Under its new rules the SSA will report those individuals that meet the following criteria to the Attorney General in accordance with its mandate under the NIAA:

  • The individual is a SSD or Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) recipient;
  • The individual was found to meet or equal a Psychological Listing under 12.00 of the Social Security Act;
  • The individual was determined by the SSA to be unable to manage his/her own economic benefit and therefore a Representative Payee has been assigned to manage the individuals benefit on their behalf.

Based on these parameters, the impact of this new reporting system on most SSD recipients is extremely limited. First, an individual has to be determined to “meet a Listing within Section 12.00” of the Social Security Act. Legally, this means that the individual’s psychological impairment, in and of itself, was determined by the SSA to be so severe that no other factor was considered during the determination of whether the individual could perform work activities. This is not applicable to the majority of SSD cases involving uniformed personnel; generally a recipient had other factors considered during the SSD adjudication process. Such factors as an applicant’s other disabilities, age, education level, previous work experience and transferable skills are commonly evaluated in order to determine the individuals work capability. Where these factors were considered in addition to the psychological impairment, these individuals are not subject to the new reporting rules. In other words, only those that have been found to suffer from such a severe psychological disability that nothing else was considered during the SSD process will be reported to the Attorney General under these new firearm possession rules.

Second, the SSA further limits the number of SSD recipients it will report to the Attorney General with the additional criteria that the individual must also have been found incapable of managing their own funds and the SSA appointed a Representative Payee to receive the economic benefit on the recipients behalf. This means that not only does the individual have to meet or equal a Social Security Act Listing but they also have to be found incapable of managing their own funds. This additional criteria further limits the amount of SSD recipients that are affected by the new rules and greatly limits the amount of uniformed personnel that should be concerned with these new provisions.

I do have one concern with the new rules, and it is a concern that is coming to fruition. The SSA has indicated that they will send out, to the SSD recipient, a notification of potential reporting to the Attorney General under the new rules when it is determining whether a SSD recipient is in need of a Representative Payee. A Representative Payee determination is sparked when the SSA has information that the SSD recipient may have a psychological illness that affects their ability to manage their own funds. It is my fear that this notice of potential reporting will go to all SSD recipients being considered for a Representative Payee, rather than those that also meet the Listing criteria noted above. Therefore, some who clearly do not meet the criteria for reporting to the Attorney General may still receive a letter saying that they might be referred to the Department of Justice. In fact, we have already fielded calls from clients saying that they received notification that they may be reported despite the fact that they clearly do not meet the criteria discussed above, so it does appear that my fear is in fact reality. This will cause undue stress for many who receive SSD benefits and retain their weapons post their retirement from their law enforcement position. If you, or any of your members, receive this letter you should immediately consult with your attorney to weigh the likelihood of being reported.

Overall, the impact of the new Social Security regulations are extremely limited as they relate to our law enforcement clientele. If you or your members have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach me anytime, (212) 612-3198 or

SSD and Gun Ownership Rights

Attorney Advertising.

2016 Social Security Changes

2016 Social Security Changes Fact Sheet

At McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson, and Riordan, LLP., one of the legal services we provide to clients is helping them obtain Social Security Disability benefits. With changes in the law occurring yearly at best, its hard to monitor what you are qualified for and how much you are paying.

Linked above is a downloadable PDF of the most current Social Security Changes Fact Sheet, provided by the Social Security Administration’s website. It addresses Cost of Living, tax exemptions, disability thresholds, and retirement benefits. According to the fact sheet, the tax rate for employed and self-employed individuals has not changed; however, the disability threshold has gone up. This is particularly important to what we do and what our clients need. According to the SSA website, a worker as young as 20 has a 25% chance of becoming disabled before fulfilling the 40+ years of work they would have before retirement. What could happen as this individual’s experience grows in their line of work and they perform more complicated tasks? One would think that the more complicated the task, the risk for an accident becomes greater.

If any of this applies to you, this would be extremely helpful to read. Related content can also be found in our Delegate Handbook linked on our homepage.

Delegate Handbook-Your Source For Workers’ Compensation Information

Linked below is our recently updated Delegate Handbook-a resource for all employees, and those who help give those employees a voice. This is also on our home page for quick and easy downloading.

This downloadable handbook breaks down general information and topics of Workers’ Compensation, Social Security Disability, and NYCERS pensions. This will be updated on a regular basis, as the legislation and environment around workers’ compensation and SSD changes. The most recent update to the handbook has been information surrounding the recent extension for filing WTC12 claims. The section contains information about the extension, an updated WTC 12 form as well as registration of participation form, and helpful tips on how to file WTC 12 related claims. This is also supplemented by several other forms a claimant will need to when filing forms such as the C-3 Employee Claim form and the C-3.3 Limited Release of Health Information form, located in the first section of the PDF. This handbook also contains a section for PBA members, with Bureau of Justice Assistance Factsheet and bulleted information about PSOB death claims and disability claims. This was made available to website visitors just this month! Previously only available as a hard copy, it is now available to the public.

This was made with you in mind.

Delegate Handbook-September Edition

Attorney Advertising.

Problems for Correction Officers

jail prison cell and bars

New Appellate Case Raises Problems for NYC Correction Officers’ Disability Pensions

By: Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq.

Partner, McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson & Riordan, LLP.

Correction Officers have a tremendously dangerous job, each day confronted with the most hardened criminals in our justice system. Based on this danger New York’s governing bodies have put in place protections for Officers who become permanently disabled due to their job duties. Correction Officers in New York City, New York State and those in the County jails have ¾’s disability pensions available to them if they become permanently disabled from full duty resulting from an “act of an inmate.” A frequent question that arises in Correction Officer ¾’s cases is: What legally constitutes the “act of an inmate?” Over the course of the last year New York State and County Correction Officers have been able to procure good legal decisions solidifying their ¾’s rights. However, a recent decision in the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department has greatly challenged the rights of NYC Correction Officers ¾’s benefits.

It’s important to understand that two different appeals courts cover the two different pension systems, the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (“NYCERS”) and the New York State & Local Retirement System. When a City Correction Officer is forced to appeal a ¾’s denial such denial will be appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department (“2nd Department”). When a NYS/County Correction Officer appeals a ¾’s denial their appeal goes before the Appellate Division, Third Department (“3rd Department”). The two courts now have vastly different stances on what the “act of an inmate” is for ¾’s purposes.

The 3rd Department has considered the “act of an inmate” clause several times over the last decade. Initial decisions narrowed the clause to include only “direct interactions” between the inmate and the Officer. The Court further limited the act of an inmate to exclude “benign inmate chores” such as mopping etc. In doing so the court recognized the legislature’s intent behind the ¾’s bill was to protect Officers from the unique dangers presented in the prison/jail setting, not simple accidents that arise from some inmate responsibilities. As Officers and their attorneys began to worry that the “act of an inmate” clause would be so narrowly interpreted as to be almost meaningless, the 3rd Department issued its decision in Naughton v. DiNapoli finding that injuries that flow directly from the “unruly and combative” actions of an inmate are covered for ¾’s purposes. In DeMaio v. DiNapoli the 3rd Department importantly stated that “act of an inmate” does not have to be intentional, but instead that there is some affirmative act of an inmate that lead to an Officer’s injuries. The importance of this decision cannot be overstated as having to prove the inmates’ intent to hurt the officer would be extremely difficult in many cases. Further, such a reading of the statute would provide incentive for inmates to hide their intentions. This is now the problem faced by New York City Correction Officers.

The 2nd Department recently upheld the Brooklyn Supreme Court decision in Jones v. NYCERS. In Jones an Officer “suffered an injury to her shoulder and elbow when an inmate pulled a cell door which she was opening with the cell key.” On initial appeal the Brooklyn Supreme Court found that NYCERS did not act “arbitrarily or capriciously” in finding that the incident did not meet the standards of the “act of an inmate” clause. The ruling relied on the legislative intent behind the ¾’s bill without specifying why the inmate’s actions towards the Officer did not meet such intent. On appeal to the 2nd Department, the Court found NYCERS determination was not “arbitrary and capricious” and was based on “some credible evidence”, two legal standards that attorney’s face when bringing these appeal actions.

Under the 3rd Department’s standard it can clearly be argued that the incident in which Jones was injured constitutes an “act of an inmate.” There was a direct interaction between the inmate and Jones, and the inmate’s actions can be established as “unruly”, if not “combative”, as well. The 2nd Department’s decision now leaves us with the unenviable position of potentially having to prove an inmate’s intention to harm the officer with their actions, not a good position for New York City’s Boldest.

There is one potential savior, the 2nd Department did not address whether NYCERS interpretation of “act of an inmate” clause constitutes an “error of law.” In DeMaio, the court specifically found that the Retirement System committed error of law in its interpretation of the “act of an inmate” provision, unjustly placing an additional burden on the applicant of having to prove the intent of the inmate. If NYCERS now follows the Jones decision, we will be forced to challenge their interpretation of the “act of an inmate” clause as an error of law necessary of overturn. We will fight diligently to protect NYC’s Correction Officers ¾’s benefits.

To best combat this decision on a day-to-day basis, officers should be cognizant of specifically noting their direct interaction with the inmate that caused their injury. “Unruly” and “combative” behavior by the inmate should be specifically noted in the Injured Employee Report. For instance, in Jones, the NYCERS Board of Trustees noted that there may have been a different outcome if the “contemporaneous documentation” had noted that the inmate “intentionally” pulled the gate, rather than “accidentally” which was actually noted in the initial reports. Statements that help the reader capture the volitional, combative and/or violent nature of the interaction potentially help us on the ¾’s if needed later on. The general rule of thumb is do not assume the inmate’s intent, either good or bad, in your report, merely the factual circumstance that led to an injury.

If you have any questions regarding your ¾’s case, or an injury in general, don’t hesitate to contact me anytime at 212-612-3198.


Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson & Riordan, LLP Successfully Appeals Case for Injured Correction Officer

McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson & Riordan, LLP (MDASR) has announced that the firm successfully won an appeal on behalf of a Nassau County correction officer who was initially denied disability retirement benefits, despite being injured on the job, which forced him to retire.

On March 14, 2011, Ronald DeMaio assisted in breaking up a fight between an inmate and a fellow correction officer who was searching the inmate for contraband. Officer DeMaio subsequently escorted the inmate down a stairwell by holding the inmate’s arm. The inmate pulled away from Officer DeMaio, causing him to injure his lower back.

When Officer DeMaio applied for disability, he was denied and requested a hearing and a redetermination. The Hearing Officer upheld the initial decision, stating that Officer DeMaio failed to meet his burden of proof because he had failed to show that the inmate intentionally caused his injury. Officer DeMaio then retained MDASR to represent him on an Article 78 appeal. The firm argued that the Hearing Officer’s determination misstated the applicable legal standard and that the firm’s client needed to prove the injuries came from “any act of an inmate,” but the hearing officer wrongfully found that Officer DeMaio needed to prove that the inmate deliberately caused him harm.

On March 31, 2016, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, ruled that the hearing officer did not properly apply the legal standard for review during the hearing process and committed an error of law in her determination.

Sean Riordan, a Partner with the firm, represented Officer DeMaio during the appeal. “Despite what many of the Hearing Officers have recently ruled, the ‘act of an inmate’ that causes the correction officer’s injury does not need to be an intentional act. These rulings are no longer valid,” Mr. Riordan said.

The Appellate Division also found that the Hearing Officer failed to provide the proper standard of review, finding that a redetermination is a de novo review, not a substantial evidence review. Mr. Riordan said the Hearing Officer did not take into account all of the evidence before making the determination. “In pension hearings, the Hearing Officer must review the totality of the evidence before it and make a new decision, not merely adjudicate whether the prior application decision was supported by substantial evidence,” he said. “While this procedural ruling appears to be legal semantics, Hearing Officers frequently justify denials on the basis that the Comptroller’s initial determination is supported by substantial evidence without giving the CO a full and fair review of the evidence. This is now also invalid reasoning.”

For more information, call (631) 665-0609 or visit

* A copy of the decision is attached.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Urban Institute Releases Report Detailing Social Security Disability Demographics

The Urban Institute recently issued a report detailing demographic trends affecting the social security disability (SSDI) program.

The report details the growth of the social security disability program over the past 45 years. In 1970, there were 1.5 million DI recipients and, in 2013, there were nearly 9 million disabled workers. The report cited the growing pool of older individuals, the changing job market for less-educated workers, and changes in federal policy, as the reasons for the sharp increase in DI beneficiaries, including eligibility criteria and the Social Security full retirement age.

According to The Urban Institute, most DI recipients come from lower-income status’; 47 percent of recipients ages 31 to 49 fell in the bottom 20 percent of household incomes, while only 4 percent of recipients in the same age group were in the top 20 percent.

The age distributions for DI workers tilt more towards the older age groups because, as the population ages, there is a higher probability of illness. In 2013, approximately 32 percent of male DI workers were 60 years old and above, up to full retirement age when DI switches over to social security. Looking at males ages 55 to 59, the percentage drops from 32 percent to 24 percent. For female recipients, the percentages are similar with just a slight increase in the lower age groups. The average age for females is 53.4, and for males is 53.5.

The report also showed disparities between the amount of benefits men and women receive on a monthly basis. In general, the monthly average benefit in 2013 was $1,146, but men collect more than that at $1,271 a month while women collect a mere $1,011 a month- 25 percent less than what men collected. The stated reasons for the discrepancy are the variations in earning capacity between men and women, and the types of jobs each gender typically occupies.
To qualify for DI, an applicant must have a disabling illness. In 1996 approximately 20 percent of beneficiaries were suffering from musculoskeletal or connective tissue diseases diseases, and by 2014, the percentage had increased to 31 percent according to the report. Circulatory diseases, on the other hand, decreased to only 8 percent in 2014 from 12 percent in 1996. The number of individuals qualifying under mental illness has been fairly consistent, falling between 30 and 34 percent overall.

The Law Offices of McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson, & Riordan, LLP handles Social Security Disability claims throughout the five boroughs of New York City, including Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, in addition to both Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. For more information, please call (866)-557-7500 or click here to speak with our office.

Social Security Disability Insurance Becomes Subject of Reform

Small changes to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) are expected, but are just not going to be enough, according to U.S. Senators James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). In a letter they wrote last week, the alterations in the budget agreement constructed last year will only be like “band-aids” for the program’s fiscal problems. The senators argue that fundamental changes need to be made in order to provide a system that will help those in need.

Those in agreement with Senators Lankford and Manchin believe some of the issues with SSDI are fraud, overpayment, the weaknesses of the application process, and the relationship between SSDI benefits and other federal programs in place. Supporters of this view believe the remedies for these issues include the reorganization of the determination process to be more efficient and accurate, and recipients of SSDI could be given more support to find other sources of income and employment. Furthering this view, the Social Security Trustees stated that “reallocation of resources in the absence of substantive reforms might, on the other hand, serve to delay DI (Disability Insurance) reforms and much needed corrections for OASDI (Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance) as a whole.”

Others point to how the U.S. government has historically “borrowed” money from Social Security without paying it back. It is reported that former President George W. Bush withdrew approximately $708 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund while he was in office and it has not yet been replenished. Additionally, the trust fund is managed by the Department of the Treasury by investing in special issue government bonds. Some question if the government can make good on these bonds, which if cashed in, may lead to social security solvency.

Additional ideas on how to improve solvency with the Social Security Trust Fund include increasing social security taxes (from the current 6.2%), lifting the payroll cap (so that social security taxes apply to total income instead of the current $118,500.00), raising the retirement age (67 for people born after 1959), and a means-test phasing out retirees depending on their income.

The issue of probable insolvency is of concern to residents of New York in addition to the already daunting application process. Approximately fifty-seven percent of New York disability claims are denied by the Social Security Administration. Once there is a denial, an applicant in New York moves on to the hearing stage, directly bypassing a reconsideration request. In most states a reconsideration request is the first step after the initial denial. A “reconsideration” is a request for a claims examiner at Disability Determination Services to review the denial. This step has been eliminated in the state of New York. Having the hearing, though, typically takes between 274 to 612 days. The timeframe depends on the applicant’s filing location. For example, in Brooklyn offices, the average is 274 days, whereas, in the Bronx office, the average is 532 days. In Jericho it is 284 days and in Queens it can be 370 days.

Considering the fiscal constraints facing the program, along with the length of the application process, it has never been more important to have an attorney assist you with disability benefits applications from the time of filing. The Law Offices of McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson, & Riordan, LLP handles social security and disability claims throughout the five boroughs of New York City, including Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island, in addition to both Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. For more information please call (866)-557-7500 or click here to speak with our office.

Attorney Advertising.