Running head: SOCIAL SECURITY 1

Social Security Administration Case

Kim Hull

Liberty University
Running head: SOCIAL SECURITY 2

Social Security Administration Case

Introduction

Due to the large caseload of the Social Security Administration, it is common for

individuals to be denied at least the initial time of filing an application. In this case, Vince Rogov

has been denied disability benefits multiple times and now is seeking the assistance of Mike

Lawrence who is a disabilities advocate. Advocates such as Mike are commonly used to assist

individuals seeking benefits and are knowledgeable in the process and regulations of the Social

Security Administration. During recent years, due to the increase in the administration’s

caseload; case workers need in depth documentation proving that an individual is qualified for

disability or not (Cropf, Giancola & Loutzenhiser, 2012). If this documentation is not provided

then the case worker will deny the application and explain to the applicant why and that they

may appeal the denial. This is when the disability advocates take on these individuals as clients.

Facts

Vince Rogov requested that Mike Lawrence (a disability advocate) take on his case after

being denied for disability. Vince’s history shows several medical conditions such as

hypertension, history of cardiac arrest, and back problems (Cropf, Giancola & Loutzenhiser,

2012). Furthermore, Vince may suffer from a mental disorder, but according to the case this

disorder has not been diagnosed by a medical professional such as a psychiatrist yet. Mike

Lawrence takes on Vince’s case and after more research in regards to Vince; Mike has found that

Vince may need to be diagnosed for a mental disorder since being stationed in Iraq. His family

members and friends have stated he has caused irreversible damage to their relationships. Also
Running head: SOCIAL SECURITY 3

included in Vince’s files are his criminal records which show that he has been known for

carrying fire arms proven by numerous weapons charges (Cropf, Giancola & Loutzenhiser,

2012).

Mike filed the appeals required to have a review of Vince’s disability denial and

scheduled a meeting with an administrative law judge (ALJ) who requested to see Vince at the

hearing and presentation of documentation so that he may observe Vince for himself. When

Vince was told this by Mike, Vince stated that he was looking forward to the meeting so that he

may shoot everyone at the meeting. Mike Lawrence found this disturbing even after Vince called

the following day apologizing for his statement and stating would never hurt anyone (Cropf,

Giancola & Loutzenhiser, 2012). Due to Vince’s history and possible mental disorder Mike was

unsure of how to handle the upcoming meeting.

Decision

Mike Lawrence, even after Vince apologized for his statement, was still skeptical of his

client and if he would follow through with the actions of his statement. However, Mike also took

into consideration the fact that Vince, along with his mental illness, was stressed over the process

it which takes a lengthy amount of time for the Social Security Administration to come to a

decision on his denial appeal for his disability (Cropf, Giancola & Loutzenhiser, 2012).

In the end, the case states that Mike was still pondering over Vince’s statement, but that

he was on his way to the office of the administrative law judge (ALJ) which may mean that Mike

is going through with the meeting which is to include the field worker, Vince, the ALJ and

himself. This does not mean that Vince went through with his threats or that he actually meant

the threats in which he made. It must be assumed that Mike took Vince’s medical history and
Running head: SOCIAL SECURITY 4

criminal record into consideration before making the decision to attend this meeting (Cropf,

Giancola & Loutzenhiser, 2012).

Solution

Due to the fact that Vince has shown evidence of carrying firearms, it would be in the

best interest of Mike Lawrence as well as the others who are to attend this meeting that Mike

report the threat in which Vince made towards everyone. Mike has a moral and ethical obligation

to report such threat as well as seek assistance for Vince as it seems from the case that he has

little to no family that will assist him in any form of treatment. This falls under Rule 1.6

Confidentiality of Information which states that a lawyer may breach confidentiality “to prevent

reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm” (ABA, 2015).

Due to the circumstances of this situation, Mike may also file to seek a guardian for

Vince to ensure that Vince is not left unattended at any time and therefore not harm himself or

another individual during the process of appeals (Stefan, 2003). Another option for Mike could

be to set up an appointment for Vince with a psychiatrist for a mental evaluation and establish

whether or not Vince is in need of immediate treatment while the process of appeals takes place.

Since the appeals process may take months or even years this would be the fastest option for

Vince and since the case states that he has disability benefits through the VA, he already has

access to the benefits (Cropf, Giancola & Loutzenhiser, 2012).

Mike Lawrence may has also conducted a more through approach to such cases before

making the decision to take individuals such as Vince on as clients. It is probable to say that in

the future Mike will conduct his consultations in a slightly different manner. It is possible that

due to mental illnesses that client such as Vince made need immediate treatment or assistance
Running head: SOCIAL SECURITY 5

aside from the appeals in order to be able to properly present themselves to the individuals that

make the decisions on the appeals.

Conclusion

Mike Lawrence should have reported Vince for his threats even though the stress and

frustration is understandable on Vince’s part. There were other options that Mike could have

taken to protect not only himself but others that were involved and the well-being of his client.

This case not only shows how difficult it is to gain disability benefits from the Social Security

Administration, but the ethical responsibility of the SSA and any advocates that assist individuals

in the appeals process for such disability benefits.

Running head: SOCIAL SECURITY 6

References

ABA. (2015). Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Retrieved from

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professiona

l_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information.html

Cropf, R., Giancola, J., & Loutzenhiser, K. (2012). The Public Administration Casebook.
Pearson Education, Inc.

Stefan, S. (2003). Facts sheet on Ethical Obligations of Attorneys Representing Clients with Psychiatric

Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpublicrep.org/litigation-and-major-cases/ada/44-

litigation/litigation-issues/76-fact-sheet-on-ethical-obligations-of-attorneys-representing-clients-with-

psychiatric-disabilities