Disability Case Study Summary

Jonathan is a 63-year-old man, born on August 23rd, 1956 and lives with his eldest son. He was married two times and has three children, two children from his first marriage and one from his second. He lives in northern Ontario but originally was from southern Ontario, he moved here shortly following his second divorce. He is of Italian decent and is a practicing Catholic. The patient’s weight is 95 kilograms; he is 178 centimeters tall and has a body mass index (BMI) of 28.3. Jonathan says he smokes around one pack of cigarettes a day, does not exercise enough and eats fast food a few times a week. The patient now has congestive heart failure as a consequence of his myocardial infarction (MI) or heart attack. He was transferred from another hospital in the beginning of November and was waiting for more tests to be completed before he could be discharged. Jonathan has some known comorbidities that can exacerbate his CHF, this includes smoking, obesity, and noncompliance with medications.

A-The patient appeared to not comply with DCF recommendation due to conflict with his assigned DCF worker. The writer strongly advises the patient to stay in compliance with DCF as of his permanency planning. The patient was alert, engaging and oriented during this encounter. No evidence of SI/HI. The patient will need to comply with attending the 3 group session as scheduled as part of his clinical intervention.

In your grievance filed at Browning Unit, you claim your release credits were taken after your scheduled parole certification was complete. You further assert that TCU did not forward your forfeiture packet within timeframes. You are requesting to have your ERCs restored.

The Department’s Representative contends that the household was receiving benefits and was due for renewal. The household consisted of the Appellant’s husband who is receiving Home and Community Based Service benefits under the MA program and the Appellant was receiving State payment of her Medicare Part B Premium. The Appellant’s total monthly income was Social Security benefits in the amount of $855.00 and a monthly annuity in the amount of $66.00, totaling $921.00. The Appellant’s spouse received income of $767.00 from Social Security benefits. The total household income was combined

Due to the nature of Douglas’s failure to progress through Abraxas treatment plan, and the inability to find alternative placement, the department request that Douglas be placed in DJS custody until the end of his sentence.

On March 4, 2015, the subpoena sent to the address at 3412½ 7th Street, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 was returned stating, moved; unable to forward. The subpoena sent to the address at 3758 8th Street, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 has not returned. The agency has no notice of where that subpoena went. On May 5, 2015, the CP showed for the court hearing and was tested. A court hearing was scheduled for June 2, 2015. A court notice was mailed to the address at 3412½ 7th Street. The CP did not appear for the June 2, 2015 hearing. Therefore, a sanction was sent. According to Child Support Policy and Procedure Manual 5.10.1 which states, each person receiving child support services, regardless of whether (s)he is TANF or non-TANF, is required to cooperate with DHR. That includes activities such as, which is listed in Policy 5.10.1.B.2, appearing as a witness at judicial or other hearings or proceedings. In Policy 5.10.3.A, states when the CP in a TANF, foster care, or Medicaid-only case does not cooperate with IV-D activities, DHR must notify the appropriate referring agency, which in this case would be the Family Assistance of its client’s non-cooperation, which Child Support did notify TANF of this on June 4, 2015 for a sanction to be done. Another court hearing was

However, those applicants who challenged Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance’s determinations by requesting an administrative fair hearing appear before an administrative law judge but there is no opposition to explain the agency position. OTDA has repeatedly failed to appear for the countless challenges by with no explanation for their absence. While the applicable regulations provide that unless a waiver of appearance is approved by the Office of Administrative Hearings, a representative of the Agency must appear at the hearing. The representative of the Agency is required to bring a copy of the case record, a written summary of the case and be prepared to present evidence in support of the Agency determination. By allowing the Agency to make a determination to provide the Administrative Law Judge and the claimant with only an evidence packet to explain their positions while waiving their own appearance at the fair hearing, seems to be a blatant violation of the claimant’s to confront the opposing party and fully question their point of view. The Administrative Law Judge may require the Agency's appearance if necessary to protect the appellant's due process rights. However, this could remain an issue for claimant’s who are unrepresented and have no understanding that there due process rights are being violated by the Agency’s absence and may not bring this violation to the Administrative Law Judge’s

Insufficient Documentation to Show Conformance to Procedural Requirements When A Disability Determination is Based on Unresolved Work Activity That Could Affect the Decision

The claimant has a past medical history significant for multiple sclerosis, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, arthritis, and hyperlipidemia.

The client arrived at the program on 3/15/2017 and was terminated on 7/12/17. The client identified on his treatment plan that his problem was his drug use. The client identified the goal on "staying free" from prison. The client's objectives were to work on his criminal thinking, anxiety & communication, substance abuse, and mental health. The client refused to achieve these goals by not being attentive, engaging in discussions, and working on his treatment plan. However, Dalonte did complete all homework assignments. The client's lack of engagement to work on his weekly ISP objectives caused the client to be discharged from the program.

After 12./29/2015 meeting with Ruby regarding sending claims to Stephanie Zimberg, I forwarded this case to Stephanie Zimberg in Legal Bureau on 1/13/2016 with all the records that I had on the case. Per meeting with Ruby on 12/29/2015, I was not to do any more investigatory work on this case anymore and not to have anymore communication with the law department. Therefore, I did not work on getting the 10-39.

Data: Pt.'s case transffered to this writer this date. An individual session was scheduled for treatment plan review, and to discuss any concerns regarding CD treatment. Pt. is a no call; no show for his scheduled individual session.

General: Describes health status as “fair”. Height attained 5’2” weight 183 lbs. Patient states she has not experienced any changes in her weight over the past couple of months. Her ability to do activities has decreased since diagnosed with COPD and Congestive Heart Failure. She notices walking from the car into the house or activities such as watering the garden take more of an effort and her breathing becomes labored. Denies fever, chills, sweats, or night sweats unless exacerbation of respiratory problem. She states her living situation is “good”; she lives in a single story house on her own and able to perform activities of daily living.

3/4/2016 (SFC Raymond Harris): Mr. Leeth, John S. stated he attended the Priority Placement Program (PPP) brief by Mrs. Poole, Heike at CPAC Kaiserslautern did not mention anything about dependents with documented health issues. Mr. Leeth stated his wife because of her wife medical condition it will be hard for him to move. Mr. Leeth turn in an extension but it was disapproved because he qualified for the (PPP). His wife medical issue is under review by the Department of Labor because his wife medical paperwork was not in the package.

. . 12 Failing To Renew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 APPEALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CPHIMS EXAMINATION APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXAMINATION ACCOMMODATIONS FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 DOCUMENTATION OF DISABILITY-RELATED NEEDS . . 16