We'll help you find the right solution for your needs
Does this sound like your topic?
Here is the scenario: I was denied after my first ALJ hearing. My representative withdrew his representation (mainly because he made a mess and didn't want to clean it up). I had a hard time finding replacement counsel because the first representative didn't waive his fees (even though he did nothing to advance my claim). I ended up writing and submitting an appeal. I was granted a remanded hearing and the AC instructed the ALJ to correct several major mistakes (one being an incorrect onset date). I obtained new representation right before the second hearing. By the time of the second hearing, the ALJ did not correct ANY of the mistakes the AC instructed. The ALJ denied me again based solely by the combination of those mistakes he did not correct (these are clerical errors).A new request for review was submitted claiming the ALJ continued to adjudicate my claim based off errors. Additional evidence was submitted to show the ALJ's errors and how they affected my claim negatively. My question: since the AC instructed the ALJ to correct issues, since he didn't correct them, would that automatically gain another review from the AC, or do they randomly chose which claims to even review? I've read some federal cases where the AC apparently randomly did not review a claim which was ultimately awarded benefits. Will the AC more than likely take another look at my claim since they have already remanded it once, or is this a roll of the dice type of thing?