Disability benefits vary based on how long your disability is expected to last and whether you are totally or only partially disabled. Because disabilities can be very subjective, many people are unsure whether their condition is considered permanent and total. To determine whether your condition qualifies as a permanent and total disability, we must look at guidelines established by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The status of your disability is often evaluated against a five-question test regarding your ability to work and the nature of your diagnosis. If you are diagnosed with a medical condition on the SSA’s list of disabilities and cannot work at all, your condition might be considered permanent and total. If your condition is not on the list of conditions that the SSA considers disabilities, do not worry. We can work to prove that your medical condition is a disability, even if it is not on the current approved list. To help prove this, we need details about your medical condition and history, as well as information about your ability to work. Call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954 to get a free, private evaluation of your case from our disability lawyers. Determining Whether Your Disability is Permanent and Total for Disability Benefits Determining whether someone’s medical condition qualifies as a disability for SSDI or other benefits is not a simple task. Medical conditions and disabilities tend to be somewhat subjective. What might be totally disabling for some might only be partially disabling for others. So, how does the SSA define what a disability is? The SSA uses a five-question test to help evaluate the disability status of people applying for disability benefits. First, are you currently working? If you answer yes, there is a strong chance you are not considered disabled by the SSA. If you are considered disabled, you are unlikely to be considered totally disabled if you can work. Second, is your condition severe? To be considered permanently and totally disabled, you usually need a severe medical condition that prevents you from working. To answer this question, our disability attorneys need to explain how your medical condition inhibits your ability to work. This might involve significant pain, mobility issues, cognitive impairments, and other severe conditions that prevent you from working. Third, is your condition included in the SSA’s list of disabling conditions? If it is, you might have an easier time getting benefits. The SSA already assumes that conditions on this list are disabling. Even If your condition is not on the list, you might not be automatically precluded from benefits. Your condition might still be considered severe, but we must show some proof. Fourth, can you do work you were able to do before the condition arose? If you are still able to do the work you could do before you became injured, the SSA might not consider you disabled. Even if you can still do some work but not to the same extent as before your injuries, you might not be considered totally disabled, only partially. Fifth and finally, can you do other kinds of work? If you can do any other kind of work, you might not be deemed totally disabled. If you cannot work at all, you might qualify for permanent and total disability benefits. What if My Condition is Not on the SSA’s List of Disabilities? As discussed before, the SSA maintains a list of medical conditions and diagnoses considered disabilities for the purpose of getting disability benefits, like SSDI. If your condition is already on the list, we might have an easier time getting benefits, as the SSA already considers it disabling. If your condition is not on the list, you might still be eligible for benefits, but we might have to take extra steps to prove that your condition is severe and prevents you from working. We have to consider your diagnosis from a doctor and your ability to work to determine if your condition should be considered permanent and total. Even if your condition prevents you from doing any work, but your doctor says that it will eventually heal, you might not be eligible for permanent and total benefits. Instead, you might qualify for temporary total incapacity benefits. Why is it Important to Know Whether My Disability is Total and Permanent or Not? There are different levels of benefits based on a person’s condition and ability to work. People whose conditions are considered total and permanent disabilities may be eligible for the highest level of benefits offered through SSDI. Benefits for permanent and total disabilities last indefinitely, whereas disabilities that are temporary or still allow you to work to a lesser extent must terminate at some point. Many people find themselves on the line between what is considered permanent and temporary. An initial diagnosis might indicate that your injuries will eventually heal and that you are not permanently incapacitated from working. Later, your condition might change, and your disabilities might never fully recover, and you might never work again. What Do I Need to Prove My Disability is Total and Permanent? We need information about your medical and work histories when preparing your case. Medical information should come from the doctors treating your condition. We might need copies of your official medical records and letters from your doctors explaining your diagnosis. This is especially important if your medical condition is not on the list of approved conditions by the SSA. Next, we need information about your work history. To qualify for SSDI benefits, you need a history of working and paying into the Social Security system. What kind of work were you doing before, and for how long? Can you still work in some capacity? If you cannot work at all, we need to be prepared to explain this. Call Our Disability Attorneys for Help Today Call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954 to get a free, private evaluation of your case from our Allentown, PA disability lawyers.

Law Review: Rapoport, Nancy- Am I My Colleagues’ Keeper When It Comes to Disclosing Connections? Ed Boltz Fri, 03/01/2024 - 22:06 Abstract:In late 2023, news stories picked up stories about a lawsuit alleging that Bankruptcy Judge David Jones of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas had been hearing cases in which his live-in romantic partner was appearing as counsel. The Fifth Circuit began disciplinary proceedings, and Judge Jones resigned from the bench. The scandal has affected more than just these two people: it implicates law firms, and potentially implicates other lawyers or judges who might have known more than they were saying. This article explores who had a duty to disclose this particular “connection,” and under what authority. Commentary:  While this paper on the ethical obligations of the parties involved exclusively in Chapter 11 cases,  unnoticed and perhaps more interesting to the consumer bankruptcy attorney is  that Judge Jones said: that he would have had a recusal obligation for cases involving Freeman’s firm only if they had been married and had communal property. Judge Jones owns the home in Houston which   he and Freeman reside in, and pays utilities and other expenses on the home. Had  either he or Ms.  Freeman  filed their own consumer bankruptcy it seems almost certain that any bankruptcy judge would have concluded this was a single "economic  unit"  and imputed  at least some portion of all parties' incomes towards the amount required to be paid to creditors.  11 U.S.C § 101 (10A)(B)(i).  That such a basic (albeit often flawed) understanding and imposition  in consumer cases did not inform the judge's own reflections regarding appropriate behavior add to the disappointment about the choices made here,  especially as consumers in cases where they geese served in a sauce not good enough for the judicial gander  seems unnoticed at all levels and unlikely to see any review or remedy. To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document am_i_my_colleagues_keeper_when_it_comes_to_disclosing_connections.pdf (1018.47 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

Bankr. W.D.N.C.: In re BK Racing- Ed Boltz Thu, 02/29/2024 - 22:16 Summary: The Chapter 11 debtor,  through  its manager,  Smith,  brought several actions against insiders and "persons closely allied with those insiders"  for recovery of  prepetition transfers.  During discovery against O'Haro,  which was "plagued by unsubstantiated 'narrative' defenses",  over the course of the case Smith filed two Motions to Compel against O'Haro.  During her first deposition,  O'Haro  invoked her Fifth Amendmnet right against self-incrimination,  as a criminal investigation related to this business was underway.   In response,  a third Motion to Compel was filed,    with the bankruptcy court eventually finding in May of 2022 that while her invocation of the Fifth Amendment was understandable and that no inferences were drawn against her,  since O'Haro had by now been released from any subpoena in the criminal investigation,  her continued discovery delays and  failures justified the imposition of sanctions,  ordering that O'Haro pay costs and attorneys fees and be subject to a second deposition.   During that second deposition,  which was conducted by Zoom at the office of Devine, the former owner of the debtor, O'Haro  not only persisted in refusing to respond to questions,  but appears to have had off-camera assistance from Devine.  At the hearing on the third Motion to Compel,  Smith sought as a further and ultimate sanction that a default judgment be entered against O'Haro.  The bankruptcy court,  finding that O'Haro's lack of answers and coaching from Devine  justified the "discovery death sentence" and entered a default judgment against  O'Haro. Commentary: At the risk that a comparison  might perturb some with protective sensibilities for anyone in their "tribe",  this case is not dissimilar from the sanction against Alex Jones for his discovery malfeasance.   To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_bk_racing.pdf (572.22 KB) Category North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases Western District

Bankr. W.D.N.C.: In re Aldrich Pump Ed Boltz Wed, 02/28/2024 - 20:28 Summary: The bankruptcy court denied a motion to dismiss two  chapter 11 cases,  which had employed  the infamous 'Texas Two Step"  to address (avoid?  skirt?) liability for asbestos mass torts claims,  holding that : The lack of “financial distress” does not divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction, and There is no violation of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution when the debtor has no “financial distress.” Finding “no provisions in the Bankruptcy Code evidencing a congressional intent to impose a jurisdictional insolvency or ‘financial distress’ requirement to file bankruptcy”,  the  constitutional challenges were “not challenges to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Commentary: Leaving the Chapter 11 commentary to others more well versed there,   but solvent debtors (particularly in states with  terrible homestead exemptions like North Carolina) are not at all uncommon in Chapter 13 cases.  And while certainly most of those are facing "financial distress",  whether being cash poor despite having non-liquid assets,  facing foreclosure, to provide for an orderly and controlled payment of debts or for a host of other reasons and tools available only in bankruptcy. To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_aldrich_pump_compressed.pdf (529.28 KB) Category North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases Western District

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Maynor- Vesting in Chapter 13 and Continued Oversight of Assets Ed Boltz Mon, 02/26/2024 - 22:22 Summary: Through a combination of selecting vesting of assets at confirmation and the use of  nonstandard provisions,  Maynor's plan in essence sought to excuse the requirement from Local Rule 4002-1(g)(4),  which (at the time of this decision*)  provided that: (4) DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY. After the filing of the petition and until the plan is completed, the debtor shall not dispose of any non-exempt property having a fair market value of more than $10,000 by sale or otherwise without prior approval of the trustee and an order of the court.    Additionally,   the Notice and Order to the Debtor, which is issued upon the filing of a chapter 13 case in the E.D.N.C, provides: (4) Financial/Address Changes: You must notify your attorney and the trustee of any change of mailing address or employment. You must notify the court of any change in mailing address. You must also promptly notify your attorney and the trustee of any substantial changes in your financial circumstances, including substantial changes in your income, expenses, or property Ownership. . . .    (10) Disposition of Property: You must not dispose of any non-exempt property having a fair market value of more than $10,000.00 by sale or otherwise without prior approval of the trustee and an order of this court. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to confirmation,   based on the "the over-arching and troubling question" of  these provisions,  which had been rejected on multiple previous by the bankruptcy and district courts in the E.D.N.C.,  see, e.g.,  In re Skilling (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 2022)  intended “to limit the debtor’s obligations under the Order and Notice, or to obfuscate and confuse the trustee as to his intention with respect to this or any of the other nonstandard provisions of the Plan.” The bankruptcy court  agreed,  holding that  the "continuing interest in 'the preservation of the debtor’s financial situation,' the bankruptcy process is dependent upon disclosure and transparency."   Continuing,  in strikingly strong language ("Repetition alone, with no new binding law and no unique factual circumstances, is now and will remain insufficient."),  the bankruptcy court indicated that, despite concerns about issuing an advisory opinion  (and perhaps exercising more restraint that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to require in its oddball Kiviti v. Bhatt decision),  it would " articulate the bases upon which it will not confirm plans that include provisions that are identical in substance, form, or intent" to those proposed here. The court began by drawing the distinction between exemptions for things in themselves,  for example "professionally prescribed health aids'', see  N.C.G.S. § 1C‑1601(a)(7),  and exemptions   for a specified value,  for example, most pertinently in this case and generally the $35,000  homestead exemption at N.C.G.S. § 1C‑1601(a)(1).     While acknowledging that Local Rule 4002-1(g)(4) can be read in more than one way,  the court found the practical understanding of the rule  requires that  that if,   at the time property is ultimately sold, the fair market value exceeds $10,000 over liens plus the claimed exemption, then court authority is required to sell the property. In regardings to what continued authority the court has over property that vested in the debtor at confirmation,  while recognizing that the interplay of 11 U.S.C.  § § 1306(a) and 1327(b) "has confounded courts" and that the 4th Circuit has not specifically adopted any of the five vesting theories,  the bankruptcy court nonetheless found that the 4th Circuit decisions in  Murphy v.O’Donnell (In re Murphy) (4th Cir. 2007) and  Arnold v. Weast (In re Arnold), 869 F.2d 240 (4th Cir. 1989),  held that  “a debtor cannot use plan confirmation as a license to shield himself from the reach of his creditors when he experiences a substantial and unanticipated change in his income.”   As such,  the bankruptcy court held that,  absent a reversal of Murphy,  the Fourth Circuit would  reject the estate termination,  estate transformation or estate replenish approach as adopted in the  In re Elassal, 654 B.R. 434 (Bankr. E.D.Mich. 2023) opinion.  Under the remaining vesting theories which the 4th Circuit could adopt,  viz.  estate preservation, conditional vesting or estate replenishment as applied in  Barbosa v. Soloman, (1st Cir. 2000),  ann would still subject the debtor to oversight regarding the disposition of  assets. Commentary: *  The proposed amendment to Local Rule 4002-1(g), a copy of which is attached, would instead provide: (4) DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY. After the filing of the petition and until the plan is completed, the debtor shall not dispose of any non-exempt property (whether vested or not) having a fair market value of more than $10,000 with non-exempt equity in excess of $12,000 by sale or otherwise without prior approval of the trustee and an order of the court. “Non-exempt equity” shall be calculated using the fair market value of the property as of the date of sale or transfer after subtracting the amount of any claimed, allowed exemption and the petition date amount of any non-avoidable lien. And,  as before,  leaving aside the theories of vesting and attempts at procedural asymmetric warfare in Chapter 13,  the root of this issue is that the homestead exemption in North Carolina is outdated and woefully inadequate,  leaving Chapter 13 Debtors in particular,  due to the plans lasting as long as five years,  often forced into the Hobson's choice of either remaining in their home despite opportunities and obligations that would urge selling and relocating or  selling that property and only keeping proceeds that will be insufficient for homeownership elsewhere.  The better solution would be for the North Carolina Bar Bankruptcy Section to work towards reasonable exemption reform. To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document 2024_proposed_amendments.pdf (108.13 KB) Document in_re_maynor.pdf (321.99 KB) Category North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases Eastern District

Here’s How You Can Make Your Chapter 13 Payments in the Alexandria VA Bankruptcy Court The bankruptcy law tells you to make your first Chapter 13 payment one month after your bankruptcy case is filed.  If you forget, or bounce, your first payment, the Chapter 13 trustee can dismiss your case. (That means DO NOT wait until your Chapter 13 plan is approved–that will be three or four months down the road. Start making payments now!). That’s by law. 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1). When the Court confirms your plan, then the trustee may issue a “wage directive” to garnish the payment from your paycheck. If that doesn’t happen, you need just to keep making those payments. Ten Things to know about how to make your Chapter 13 payments: 1.The Alexandria Chapter 13 Trustee, Thomas Gorman, does not accept cash, credit, or debit cards. He also won’t take online or telephone payments.  Mail your payments to his address in Memphis. (That bank in Memphis handles the payments for most of the bankruptcy courts in the country.) 2. Do not send money orders. They are too difficult to track down and get your money back if they get lost in the mail.  Instead, I suggest setting up a bill pay with your bank. With bill pay, your bank mails the check. You can watch your account and see when the check clears.   3. Don’t send a post-dated check. The Memphis bank will deposit it as soon as they get it. So, don’t send your check until you’re sure it’s good. 4. The bank won’t put a bounced check through a second time. Just send a new check. 5. Don’t use UPS or FedEx. The payment address is a PO Box in Memphis. UPS and FEDEX don’t deliver to PO Boxes.   6. If you bounce your check twice, then Thomas Gorman will make you to send all future payments by money order or cashiers check. That’s an enormous waste of time. It’s better to be late than to bounce a check. 7. If your check doesn’t clear your bank, don’t call to ask the Trustee if they got it. They don’t know. That bank in Memphis is handling over a hundred thousand Chapter 13 payments every month! If the bank doesn’t deposit your check, then you know it’s lost in the mail. Send it again. 8. Make your check payable to: Thomas P. Gorman, Trustee 9. Include your NAME and CASE NUMBER on your check. For bill paying purposes, your case number is your account number.  If you get that wrong, your payment might go to the wrong account.  People mail three thousand checks every day to that bank; so make sure yours has the right account number. I like setting up bill pay with your bank as the best way to make your Chapter 13 payment.   10. Mail all payments to the payment address at:                Thomas P. Gorman                Chapter 13 Trustee                P.O. Box 1553                Memphis, TN                       38101-1553 And Remember to Pay:   Trustee Gorman will not send you a monthly reminder or call when you are late. It is up to you to make sure he receives your payment every month.  

Many Pennsylvania residents rely on long-term disability benefits in order to get the income they need to live fruitful lives. Obtaining those benefits, however, can sometimes be a challenge. Long-term disability programs can be extremely competitive and have strict requirements that must be met in order to qualify. Insurance companies may also want to try to deny benefits in order to avoid paying out an expensive policy. They have every incentive to fight back, at least initially, against a long-term disability claim. Individuals trying to navigate the long-term disability landscape on their own may run into complications they simply do not have the time to handle. When that happens, you need experienced legal counsel to help you out. Our attorneys can help you with long-term disability claims or appeals by being ardent advocates for you. We can collect evidence for your claim or appeal, talk to insurance providers on your behalf, and make sure that your applications and other forms are properly filed with the appropriate entities. To have our Pennsylvania long-term disability lawyers start helping you with your claim or appeal, call Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954. Why Hire Our Long-Term Disability Claim Lawyers in Pennsylvania? Some people may believe that they can handle the process of a long-term disability claim or appeal by themselves. This is not an advisable idea. You are at a serious disadvantage if you do not hire legal representation like our Philadelphia long-term disability lawyers. First, the process of obtaining long-term disability benefits is complicated and requires many steps. Our lawyers know how to deal with this process, while the average person does not have experience with these filings. Second, there are a lot of forms, paperwork, and other time-consuming things that need to be done that are associated with long-term disability claims. Our attorneys can assist you with these tasks. Finally, insurance companies that provide these services are not always on your side. Insurance providers are never in the business of always providing coverage; otherwise, they would not make any money. For that reason, your insurance may not want to give you coverage when you need it. Let our lawyers negotiate with them so that you can focus on other important things. Private Disability Claims vs Federal Programs in Pennsylvania Generally, disability claims or appeals will be going to private insurance companies, not government programs like SSA or SSDI. for each kind of long-term disability claim. You really do need legal assistance when dealing with these entities, as the process is complicated, and someone who does not have legal experience can get tripped up and have their application denied when they are truly deserving of approval. Private insurance companies are in the business of making a profit. They do this by providing a service – having coverage for you in the event that you become disabled either for a long time or permanently. However, their objective is not necessarily to help you out. This means that a private long-term disability insurance provider may not be willing to approve your claim if they do not believe it will be profitable. They will look for loopholes to get out of their obligation to provide coverage. Our attorneys know how to handle this type of behavior and will make sure that private insurers give you the coverage they said they would. What Can You Do to Prepare for a Long-Term Disability Claim or Appeal in Pennsylvania? There are a number of things you can do to assist our lawyers in advocating for your long-term disability claim. Some of these things are for your own well-being and personal benefit, while others are critical for success in a long-term disability claim or appeal with the help of our legal team. Understand the Program You are Applying For It can be helpful to do some independent light research on your insurance policy so you know what to expect. Insurance providers will likely have some front-facing information from which you can glean important details. Of course, this will doubtless try to spin them in a positive light. Your experience with the insurance company may be very different from the face they put forward in ads and other places. Our attorneys would be more than happy to help you with this process and fill in any gaps or answer questions you may have about these programs. Collect Medical Records Your medical records are very important to the success of a long-term disability claim. These records can help prove that you are, in fact, disabled and deserving of coverage. Our attorneys can help you track down and compile these medical records. Notify Medical Professionals If you regularly see a physician or other medical professional, you should make them aware that you are seeking long-term disability coverage. Your medical provider can advocate for you to insurance companies and federal programs to help your claim or appeal get approved. Continue Getting Treatment If you are already getting treatment for a long-term disability, you should continue to do so. Your health and well-being always take priority over legal matters. Moreover, continued treatment can be used as evidence that you are disabled and bolster your long-term disability claim. This is especially true if you are appealing an initial denial of long-term disability, as stopping treatment can be used to support an assertion that you are not disabled and do not need the assistance of disability insurance or a federal program. Speak to Our Pennsylvania Long-Term Disability Lawyers Now Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates has Quakertown, PA long-term disability lawyers standing by to start assisting you with your claim or appeal when you call (215) 515-2954.

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Purdy- Dismissal with Prejudice for Forged Letter Ed Boltz Mon, 02/26/2024 - 04:05 Summary: The Purdys filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and were subject to the local form Order and Notice, which imposed,  among other requirements  and restrictions,  that they obtain prior approval from the bankruptcy court before incurring new debts in excess of $10,000.  Two years later,  on December 8, 2021,  the Purdys moved to incur a mortgage to finance a home.  While the Trustee did not object to that motion,  the bankruptcy court sua sponte denied the motion (including a subsequent denial of a motion to reconsider) on January 5,  2022.  In April of 2022,  after being provided information regarding the Purdy's income,  the Trustee discovered that they were making a monthly mortgage payment,  having gone forward with the purchase and financing of a home- despite the earlier denial by the bankruptcy court.  While continuing to pursue the mortgage financing,  Ms.  Purdy, shaving the truth far too close, informed the lender that the Trustee had not opposed the motion and provided a letter that appeared to be on the Trustee's letterhead and to include his signature stating that "[o]ut office fully supports Marcus and Amanda Purdy obtaining a mortgage." This letter was a forgery by Ms. Purdy. The Trustee moved to dismiss the Purdy's case and following a hearing on September 27, 2022,  the bankruptcy dismissed the case with prejudice.  The Purdys appealed arguing that the bankruptcy court erred in admitting the forged letter into evidence as they had not contested that they had violated the local Order and Notice.  The district court upheld the admission of the forged letter,  as it was relevant to the Purdys' opposition to the motion to dismiss their case.  The district court also declined to consider the "irrelevant and baseless" arguments raised by Purdy's that their self-described "housing decision" caused no damage to any party or that the local rules  were "unconstitutionally nonuniform",  abridged substantive rights and violated the separation of powers.  The district court also upheld the dismissal with prejudice and further referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Commentary: The argument by the Purdys that their fraud should be excused as it did not cause any damage to any party  was similarly recently rejected in New York v.  Trump. Despite the referral, it does not yet  appear in PACER that any criminal charges have been brought against Ms.  Purdy or any other party. For a copy of the opinion, please see: To read a copy of the transcript, please see: To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_purdy.pdf (160.97 KB) Document purdy_appellees_brief.pdf (393.34 KB) Document purdy_reply_brief.pdf (92.05 KB) Document purdy_appellants_brief_compressed_3.pdf (525.8 KB) Category North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases Eastern District

4th Circuit: Choi v. Hyon- Actual Fraudulent Intent and Willful Injury Ed Boltz Sun, 02/25/2024 - 20:26 Summary: The Court of Appeals upheld the bankruptcy and district court opinions finding that Hyon did not act with fraudulent intent as required by  In re Biondo, 180 F.3d 126, 134 (4th Cir. 1999).  Next,  the Court of Appeals also upheld the determinations by the lower courts that  “[t]he word ‘willful’ in [(523)](a)(6) modifies the word ‘injury,’ indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury.” Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998), or more simply the injury must be willful and intended not merely the act that led to the injury. Commentary: This case again explicitly shows the deference that appellate courts will show to the finder of fact in these cases. For a copy of the opinion, please see:   Blog comments Attachment Document choi_v._hyon.pdf (122.4 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

Social media has become a defining characteristic of our times, and millions of people use it daily. While you might think your social media is harmless fun, it can be used against you in a legal setting, like a Workers’ Compensation claim. An insurance company might use social media to deny your Workers’ Compensation claim. This tends to come up when the things a person posts on social media do not align with their claims. For example, photos or videos of you appearing uninjured shortly after your accident might be used to deny your claims. Unfortunately, much of what is posted online lacks context, and you might be wrongfully denied. The insurance company might obtain your social media information if it is publicly available. If you have strict privacy settings, they might get your information from people who know you. If all else fails, the insurance company might try to get a court order compelling you to hand over your social media. Talk to an attorney about how to protect yourself. To get a free, private case evaluation, call our Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation lawyers of Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954. How Social Media Might Be Used Against You in a Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Case When you begin a Workers’ Compensation case, your claims may be subject to scrutiny and investigation by your employer’s insurance company. The insurance company is responsible for making payments if your claims are approved, and they may refuse to cover you if they believe your injuries and accident do not qualify you for Workers’ Compensation benefits. The extent of the insurance company’s investigations might surprise you, and social media is not off-limits. The insurance company may take information from your public social media profiles in the course of their investigations. They might also take information from other people’s public social media profiles that you were unaware had been posted. For example, you might not post anything on your own social media after the accident, but someone who knows you might. Alternatively, other people involved in the accident at work might have posted about it online. Even if they were uninjured and did not file a Workers’ Compensation claim, their social media might be used against you. Another possibility is that someone close to you might snap a picture or record a video of you and post it online. If the insurance company finds this, they might use it against it. A good question to ask yourself is what your social media suggests about you after the crash. Usually, insurance companies are looking for evidence they can use to deny your Workers’ Compensation claim. For example, photos or videos of you appearing uninjured after the accident or posts that contradict your story about how your accident happened might be used to undermine your claims. How the Insurance Company Might Obtain Your Social Media in a Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Case Social media details are sometimes easier to get than people realize. If you have a public profile that anyone may view, it is extremely easy for the insurance company to look you up and make copies of anything you have posted. Details about your accident and injuries might also be available through others who can access your social media. You might have coworkers who follow you online, or you have approved as friends on your social media. The insurance company might ask your coworkers about what you have posted on your social media. The insurance company might instead obtain information from other social media accounts you do not control and have nothing to do with. For example, a coworker, friend, or family member who knows about the accident might post about it online without talking to you first. They might disclose details about how the accident happened or your injuries that undermine your claims. The insurance company can also seek a court order for your social media. To do this, they usually must prove to the court that your social media contains important evidence relevant to the case. Our Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation lawyers can work to get such a court order denied. How to Prevent Social Media from Being Used Against You in a Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Case Perhaps the best way to prevent an insurance company or some other opposing party from using your social media against you is to totally avoid posting anything online after your workplace accident. If you never put anything on your social media, there is nothing that can be used to undermine your claim. If you must post, get approval from your attorney first to avoid accidentally disclosing private information that could be used to deny your claims. People sometimes post information about an on-the-job accident so that their friends and family know they are okay. If you do this, avoid giving away too many details about the accident and your injuries. It would be best if you restricted who can see your social media profiles. Double-check to make sure none of your profiles are publicly available. Set the highest privacy setting possible. Avoid approving any new friend or follower requests, as you never know who might be behind those profiles. Do not delete your social media accounts or anything you have posted. If the insurance company wants to see your social media, but you have deleted it, they might accuse you of trying to destroy evidence. If the insurance company tries to get a court order compelling you to hand over your social media, there might be a few different ways to approach the problem. First, we can convince the court that your social media is not relevant and does not need to be disclosed to the insurance company. This can be an effective strategy for those with social media but do not use it often. Your social media is likely not very useful evidence if you have not posted anything online in a long time. If the insurance company will likely get the court order they need to obtain your social media, we can work with them and the court to restrict what kind of access they have. We can argue that they should not have access to any of your social from before the accident, as it is private and otherwise irrelevant. Call Our Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Attorneys for Support Now To get a free, private case evaluation, call our Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation lawyers of Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954.