Hi Tina and listmates:

thanks for the focusing response. Does it help your situation at all to
consider that medical deductions can adjust your total gross income for in
come tax purposes, or is this an entirely separate matter?

Located on the Web: this generally helpful (educational) file (link) lays
out what defines medical deductions in some detail and explains the
computation, and may be a good reference to keep around:
http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf

Also, your medical expenses - they are such a big chunk of your income ...
are there other ways to cover medical expenses in your State (means which
would not add to your income per se ... this discussion can benefit all, and
I hope lead to some ideas for you too, though I imagine you have explored
lots of avenues.

I did find such resources, per States, using search engines to look at
(e.g.) key phrases: income and medical expenses. Have you found useful
information, e.g. using GOOGLE search engine?
http://www.google.com

Looking forward to all shared ideas, and sending best wishes 2 u and the
list, :) LDMF.
----------
Individual e-post from:
Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff, Speaker, and Chronic Pain Caucus Chair of
The National Disability Party http://www.disabilityparty.com . bio (about)
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/pain-in-the-law
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/dismissed-as-disabled

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tina Westphal" <winphal@...>
To: <pain-in-the-law@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [pain-in-the-law] Introduction


> Hi:
>
> Thank you for the welcome and the links. I will copy
> them and use them as needed.
>
> The first hurdle I have faced in getting assistance is
> the one that because I have no dependent children
> medical aid has been denied me. They look at the
> amount of my monthly pension check and decide that I
> make too much to qualify. They never take into
> consideration that I have to pay out almost $300.00
> per month more than the pension just for my
> medications.
>
> I have read somewhere that a person should be
> elligible for medicaid based on their medical expenses
> but I can't seem to find the exact ruling in the law
> so that I can get the social worker to fight on my
> behalf for it. Last year alone my medical expenses
> exceeded $100,000.00 due to my heart surgery. I have
> even been refused assistance for food stamps again
> based solely on my income.
>
> In each case I was told directly that because I do not
> have any dependent children that would suffer due to
> lack of medical care and/or food I am not elligible.
>
> If anyone has any ideas or knows of something I can do
> or even any web sites or information I can use please
> send.
>
> Thank you
>
> Tina
> winphal@...
> --- L D Misek-Falkoff <include@...>
> wrote:
> > Dear Tina:
> >
> > It is good to meet you here, and thank you for the
> > Introduction; the news of
> > struggles for needed benefits of course is sad to
> > read and perhaps we can
> > discuss the hurdles here.
> >
> > You certainly do have a good deal to cope with, and
> > without asking you to go
> > into private or confidential details of course, you
> > might post about what
> > sorts of obstacles you are finding. No advice here
> > of course, just sharing
> > information ... but several of the medical
> > conditions you present in your
> > email should (seem to) involve objective tests, and
> > hopefully medical people
> > (and legal?) are with you in your efforts.
> >
> > Previously and elsewhere we have discussed the
> > general problem of
> > communicating about intermittent disabling
> > conditions, and especially
> > involving debilitating pain. Pain conditions
> > historically have slipped
> > through the benefits tests and often unfortunately
> > raise questions or issues
> > of credibility even though the pain is intense and
> > requires great fortitude
> > to endure.
> >
> > I found this website tonight and am encouraged by
> > it, please let us know if
> > it helps at all.
> >
> > Sending a welcome and best wishes, :) LDMF.
> >
> > http://www.cfs-news.org/socsec7.txt
> > Law re: No Need to Show "Objective" Proof of
> > Disability
> >
> > Richard A. Cohen
> > Attorney at Law
> > Amherst, Massachusetts
> >
> > I recently ran across a series of federal court
> > decisions under the
> > Social Security Act which stand for the propositon
> > that disability
> > benefits may not be denied for CFS and FM, based on
> > the absence of
> > "objective" laboratory tests. I believe that these
> > cases are equally
> > helpful to people dealing with state agencies and
> > private insurers,
> > since there appear to be no contrary judicial
> > opinions. The citations
> > to these cases are as follows:
> >
> > Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 1996)
> > ("there are no
> > laboratory tests for the presence of fibromyalgia");
> > Rose v. Shalala,
> > 34 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 1994) (the "absence of
> > definitive diagnostic
> > tests" for chronic fatigue syndrome "does not
> > constitute substantial
> > evidence to support a finding that claimant did not
> > suffer from the
> > syndrome"); Sisco v. Dep't of Health and Human
> > Services, 10 F.3d 739
> > (10th Cir. 1993) ("there is no 'dipstick' laboratory
> > test for chronic
> > fatigue syndrome"); Cohen v. Secretary, 964 F.2d 524
> > (6th Cir. 1992)
> > ("the exact causes of chronic fatigue syndrome are
> > still being
> > explored"); Lantow v. Chater, No. 95-5262 (N.D.
> > Okla. October 8, 1996)
> > ("negative test results or the absence of an
> > objective medical test to
> > diagnose [fibromyalgia] cannot support a conclusion
> > that claimant does
> > not suffer from a potentially disabling condition").
> >
> > I think that the principle these cases set forth --
> > that
> > "objective" tests can't be required as a
> > prerequisite to awarding
> > disability benefits -- is not generally known in the
> > CFS/FM
> > communities. Since some insurers are still
> > purporting to deny
> > benefits on this theory, everyone should be made
> > aware that it has no
> > legal basis. Indeed, when an insurer attempts to
> > deny benefits based
> > on the lack of "objective" tests, it is bluffing.
> > What matters,
> > obviously, is the opinion of a qualified clinician,
> > backed up by a
> > history consistent with the recognized diagnostic
> > criteria for these
> > conditions.
> >
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > Individual e-post from:
> > Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff, Speaker, and Chronic Pain
> > Caucus Chair of
> > The National Disability Party
> > http://www.disabilityparty.com . bio (about)
> > http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/pain-in-the-law
> >
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/litigation-stress-central
> >
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ChronicPainCooperate
> >
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/poems-of-pain-and-promise
> > http://www.cavalcade-for-freedom-car.org
> >
> http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/CYBERLIBEL-and-EMAIL
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> pain-in-the-law-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>