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