Results of
SSDI/SSI Survey - Conducted June – Sept 2001
by Priscilla Farrell
Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a serious health problem for a large percentage of people. Studies were conducted in 1999 in California by the California State Department of Health Services and in 1999 – 2000 in Georgia by Stanley M. Caress, Ph.D., associate professor at the State University of West Georgia. They indicate that 12% - 15% of the general population is hypersensitive to everyday chemicals. Other epidemiological studies have shown that the prevalence rate in the general population is 15 – 30%, with 4% - 7% of the general population seriously affected by chemical sensitivity, as reported by William Meggs, M.D., Ph.D. at the 2001 MCS Conference. For disabled MCS sufferers applying for and obtaining disability benefits can be a greater challenge than the illness.
A survey of people disabled by MCS who had applied for Social Security benefits was recently conducted. The goal was to use the information from the survey to improve the process and the outcome of future claims. The author of this survey is in her second attempt to obtain disability benefits and can speak first hand of the stress and trauma the entire process entails. Hopefully, the information provided here will help others through the ordeal.
The survey was posted on three web bulletin boards and in one issue of Our Toxic Times. The response was very limited. In light of the detail of information requested on the survey, the health problems of those queried, and the limited “advertising,” even the smallest response was welcome. It represents a sharing of valuable information in the MCS community that can benefit others.
Only claimants listing MCS, environmental illness (EI), or chemical injury (CI) as a disabling condition were included in the survey results. Presented here are the results from Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claimants who were ultimately approved for benefits. They represented 75% of the surveys meeting the aforementioned criteria. Those with pending claims may be reported on at a later time. No surveys were returned where the claims were denied at the hearing level. This is unfortunate because the purpose here is to learn from others experiences, but understandable considering the frustration and pain involved.
Approved Claims
Gender: 89% female
Education: average 5 years of college
Age at time of claim: average age 45 years
States represented: West coast states - 33 1/3%
East coast states - 33 1/3%
Central states - 33 1/3%
Date claims were filed: 1990 – 2000 50% were filed after 1995
Approved Claims Used
an Attorney
Approved on first application - 33% 0%
Approved on reconsideration - 0% 20%
Approved at hearing - 67% 83%
Time between original filing and approval:
First application approvals 3 – 9 months
Hearing approvals 1 – 3 years
Time between Hearing and notice
of approval up to 9 months
MEDICAL PROFILE
Medical practitioners who supported claimant: The average was 4
Type of supportive practitioner:
Family practice, occupational medicine, osteopath, ear nose & throat, allergy,
environmental medicine, clinical ecology, neurology,
rhumatology, orthopedics.
Testing: No single test was done by all the claimants
Most frequently done tests, etc. – 44% of claimants reported doing one or more:
Multiple doctor visits documenting condition/symptoms
Blood work for chemicals or heavy metals
Other blood work
Neuropsychological testing
Next most frequently done tests – 33% of claimants reported doing one or more:
Allergy testing
MRI’s
X-rays
Disabling symptoms and/or diagnoses:
Only claimants reporting multiple chemical sensitivity, chemical injury or environmental
illness as a disabling condition were included in the survey results.
Other diagnoses/symptoms included: fatigue, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia,
myofacial pain syndrome, brain damage, organic brain syndrome, toxic encephalopathy,
depression, sleep dysfunction, seizures, autoimmune condition, degenerative disc disease,
osteoarthritis, somatoform disorder, reactive airways dysfunction, thyroid disease,
obesity.
Comments From Survey Respondents
FROM CALIFORNIA –
“As a general rule most applications are rejected on application and first appeal and must go
before an Administrative Law Judge. No matter how severe the disability, it is almost always the
case.” (My case) “was decided on the record (by an ALJ) with no hearing.” An attorney
was used.
FROM OREGON –
“Don’t be married to the diagnosis of MCS. I would say it is one of the most difficult areas to be approved for SSD.”
“The approval included chemical sensitivities but was highly weighted toward Somatoform Disorder – a psychological diagnosis. The judge just didn’t know what to do with subjective data.”
FROM ARKANSAS –
Regarding documentation: “List of products used in the workplace that I must avoid.”
FROM MICHIGAN –
“Almost no one but a skilled attorney would know how to refute the inevitable claims that mental problems/malingering exist, but not to the extent of being disabling and that physical illness is minimal.”
FROM MASSACHUSETTS –
“The attorney I spoke to about my case told me I had only one chance with this particular judge, and that was to get friends and relatives to send hand written letters or individually typed letters to the judge stating how long they had known me, and specific instances that they had personally witnessed where I had reacted or been affected by chemicals.”