| Social Security has a set of Impairment Listings. | | | | another case I had the applicant was a man who |
| At one time "obesity" had an impairment listing. | | | | was over 375 pounds with congestive heart |
| Thus, if the applicant was of a certain height and | | | | failure. Again, prior to 1999 he would have met |
| weight, then the applicant received Disability. For | | | | the "obesity" listing. Instead, we had the hearing |
| example, if you were 5'2" and 300 pounds, then | | | | and the judge denied the claim on the grounds he |
| you were well on your way to winning a Disability | | | | had not done enough to lose weight. The United |
| Case if you had any impairments in addition to | | | | States District Court reversed the social security |
| your "obesity".In 1999, Social Security changed | | | | judge and we are awaiting a new hearing. But |
| the Rules and deleted the Impairment Listing for | | | | again, this case shows the rules have changed and |
| "obesity". Social Security did say it would consider | | | | "obesity" no longer is the "slam dunk" winner it |
| the effects of "obesity" with regard to other | | | | once was.This may be considered AN |
| listed impairments such as respiratory | | | | ADVERTISEMENT or Advertising Material under |
| impairments, cardiovascular impairments, and | | | | the Rules of Professional Conduct governing |
| muscoloskeletal impairments (back problems).In a | | | | lawyers in Virginia. This note is designed for |
| recent case I had a young lady who was 400 | | | | general information only. The information |
| pounds and had spinal stenosis. Prior to 1999, she | | | | presented in this note should not be construed to |
| probably would have met the Impairment Listing | | | | be formal legal advice nor the formation of a |
| for "obesity". Since the rules have changed, we | | | | lawyer/client relationship.Gerald G. Lutkenhaus, has |
| had to go to a hearing before a judge and | | | | been representing Social Security Disability |
| demonstrate the severity of her back problem. | | | | claimants for 30 years in the Central Richmond |
| We won but the primary focus of the decision | | | | Area in Virginia. |
| was on the back problem and not her "obesity."In | | | | |