5 based on 9 reviews

9 Comments

  1. Joseph Pledger says:

    **Title: Allegations of Administrative Misconduct: Examining the Role of Administrative Law Judges in Veterans’ Disability Claims**

    In recent allegations, Administrative Law Judge Rebecca Adams has come under scrutiny for purportedly denying claims for veterans with severe disabilities, despite possessing full knowledge of the severity of their conditions. Multiple veterans have expressed frustration, claiming that their hearings and provided evidence seem to hold little sway in Judge Adams’ decisions.

    One of the primary concerns raised is the divergence in qualifications between administrative law judges and medical professionals. Veterans question why the statements of doctors, specialists, and other healthcare professionals, who are experts in diagnosing and assessing disabilities, seemingly carry less weight in Judge Adams’ rulings. After all, it is the duty of medical professionals to provide accurate diagnoses and assessments of patients’ conditions, which should inform the judge’s decision-making process.

    The role of an administrative law judge in disability claims is to impartially evaluate all evidence presented, including medical records and testimonies, and make a fair and informed decision based on the law and regulations. This includes cross-referencing medical limitations against national job databases to determine the claimant’s eligibility for benefits.

    However, the allegations against Judge Adams suggest a departure from this standard. There are claims that she oversteps her role by attempting to diagnose medical conditions herself, rather than relying on the expertise of healthcare professionals. Such behavior raises questions about Judge Adams’ qualifications and ability to fulfill her duties without bias or prejudice.

    Moreover, the consequences of Judge Adams’ alleged actions extend beyond mere administrative oversight. Veterans who have served their country with honor and sacrifice find themselves facing denials of vital benefits they rightfully deserve. This not only exacerbates their physical and mental hardships but also contributes to the alarming rates of suicide within the veteran community.

    The implications of these allegations are profound. They call into question the integrity of the administrative process designed to support veterans in their time of need. Furthermore, they underscore the importance of ensuring that administrative law judges adhere strictly to their prescribed roles and responsibilities.

    In light of these serious concerns, it is imperative that a thorough investigation be conducted into the conduct of Judge Rebecca Adams. The integrity of the disability claims process for veterans must be upheld, and any instances of misconduct must be addressed swiftly and decisively.

    In conclusion, the allegations against Administrative Law Judge Rebecca Adams highlight the need for vigilance and accountability in the adjudication of veterans’ disability claims. It is incumbent upon the relevant authorities to investigate these allegations thoroughly and take appropriate action to restore trust and integrity to the process. Anything less would be a disservice to the brave men and women who have served our nation.

  2. Joseph Pledger says:

    She did the exact same thing to me… purple heart combat wounded Marine vet. Severe ptsd, severe TBI with left frontal lobe damage, frequent seizures, dissociation episodes…. Denied… took the case federal and it was reopened and she was given the case to re-examine. Both hearings the vocational expert noted ZERO jobs available with my Conditions… Denial letter showed up within a week. Currently taking steps to file suit against her directly for negligence among other things…

  3. Anonymous says:

    She makes a living off of invalidating people’s suffering.

  4. Adam Kurtz says:

    Army veteran. 100% total and permanent. TDIU.
    Vocational expert said I could not hold any jobs with my PTSD.
    This judge still denied my SS.
    SERIOUSLY???

  5. Desma Carmia Johnson says:

    Judge Rebecca Adams denied my SSI benefits for suffering with severe combat related PTSD/MST with depression/anxiety. I filed twice without a lawyer and once with an attorney to get rejected again. I just read the long explanation about the reason she said NO! None of my VA documents were considered, being 100% and deemed unemployable did not matter. Most of her findings written in my denial letter were not accurate. I’m so frustrated that Rebecca Adams feels that I can work and be a productive member of society. I’m not normal and suffer every day!

  6. Stephen Lee says:

    I find listing Pros and Cons from my perspective as the easiest way to get a “review” across so I don’t ramble for 1500 characters so here we go.

    Pros:

    •Judge Adams was extremely nice, even I felt slightly comfortable talking around her and that’s usually something I don’t do. It’s a high stress situation and while I wasn’t comfortable by any means her respectfulness made the hearing not that bad

    •I didn’t feel rushed, did I get everything out I wanted to say? No, but that was no fault of hers. You can write things down, practice speeches but you’ll always forget something.

    Cons:

    •Let’s face it. Would I be here if I was approved? Probably not.

    •If my medical file was reviewed like it’s supposed to be reviewed why wouldn’t the odd appointments presented in the findings be brought up during the hearing? If you understood mental health you’d realize that if I’m not compatible with a therapist then you’d realize I’d be too anxious to ask to be moved to a different therapist and I wouldn’t be truthful to them. This is the reasoning for certain appointments in my file showing that “I was better”. This 110% should have been brought up during the hearing because I didn’t realize this false information was a contributor to my decision.

    •How can one government agency declare I’m unemployable due to my disabilities and declare it’s total and permanent with little to no chance of improving anytime in the future and then be told by the same government that I can work? I have a 100% disability rating from the VA solely based on the fact that I am unemployable. It’s completely contradicting.

    •Further evidence Judge Adams isn’t well versed in mental health. Cleaning, cooking and laundry in the privacy of my own home isn’t even comparable to going out and socializing with other people, this 100% shouldn’t have been a contributing factor to my denial.

    •Judge Adams I know you probably can’t reverse your decision and you probably will never read this but I just wanted to tell you that you’ve made a mistake. Im not sitting at home not working because I’m bored, I’m sitting at home in my own little prison because my mind won’t let me do the things that a normal person can. I mow my grass because it’s my responsibility and I have to time it when there’s a smaller chance for people to be home.

    Before I check my own mailbox I watch to make sure nobody is around. If neighbors are on the porch I go back inside and try again later. If a neighbor is getting in their car I wait for them to leave before checking the mail to avoid them.

    Those two examples are just some of the hundreds of things I do to try and feel not so scared of everyone and everything. I thank you for the opportunity to state my case both in the hearing and here and I urge you to try and make this right.

  7. SARAH BAUCHAT says:

    Judge Adams, showed that she doesn’t understand that what one person disability causes may differ from another. I have serve multiple sclerosis and epilepsy seizure disorders unable to manage my own personal care most of the time and I was denied 4 times.
    I’m still in the process of trying to get my disability.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Judge Adams, is a very caring person, she allows you the opportunity to be heard.

  9. CF says:

    Outstanding judge, fair and compassionate. She’s also very thorough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *