Law Review, Hampson, Christopher- Harsh Creditor Remedies And The Role Of The Redeemer Ed Boltz Fri, 02/23/2024 - 05:21 Abstract: The concept of the judgment-proof or collection-proof debtor is fundamental to our understanding of civil law and of what distinguishes it from criminal law.  But when civil creditors can threaten unduly harsh or cruel debt collection measures (whether legally or not), they extend their reach into the pockets of those whom this Article calls “redeemers,” third parties with a familial or quasi-familial relationship to civil debtors who have reason to pay on their behalf.  This Article examines four such measures—imprisonment, homelessness, destitution, and deportation—remedies that sound like they come from another time and place, but which are threatened by some creditors in the United States today. Such “remedies” are problematic because (among other reasons) they undermine a core pillar of civil law:  that liability—absent a guarantee—is limited to the defendant.  Because harsh creditor remedies can affect third‑party redeemers, they also provide a classic example of an externality that justifies nonparentalistic intervention.  We should think of this field not as “the law of debtors and creditors,” but as “the law of debtors, creditors, and redeemers.” The role that redeemers play in debt collection law is one of many instances in which legal institutions display a myopic view of communities:  redeemers too often stand outside the field of vision of courts and legislatures.  Even so, this theory provides a powerful tool for explaining and reinforcing legal rules ranging from the law of unconscionability to exemption statutes to consumer protection.  This Article also recommends several measures to cabin this “spillover” effect, including an argument that imprisonment for civil debt violates not only state bans on debtors’ prisons, but also the federal Due Process Clause (even after Dobbs). Commentary: With all of the discussion and case law  regarding third-party releases for basically despicable people like the Sacklers in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy,  rarely  do any of the judges or commentators on those cases contrast the relief sought  there on the cheap,  both in terms of dollars,  scrutiny or shame,  with how in consumer bankruptcy cases  the co-debtor stay  of 11 U.S.C. § 1301  is often unnecessarily co-joined with 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1)  to condition that protection on payment of the claim in full and with contract interest.   Further compounding this harsh treatment of redeemers in consumer bankruptcies,  overzealous Trustees  often seek to apply the Means Test to force a debtor's spouse and other household members to provide redemption funds on debts for which they are not liable. (Whether directly or through the overwrought "sugar daddy"  argument  that the debtor should not be allowed to underwrite  the expenses of the other household members, in effect forcing them to be redeemers.) To read a copy of the transcript, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document harsh_creditor_remedies_and_the_role_of_the_redeemer.pdf (559.25 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies Ed Boltz: Bankruptcy Attorney News

An essential backbone of the global economy, more and more trucking companies are going out of business. Challenges such as fuel price changes, regulations, labor shortages, and economic downturns can harm the industry’s stability and financial health.  Bankruptcy law can help trucking companies survive in these difficult times. Speak with a trusted bankruptcy attorney today. Get a Free Confidential Consultation Troubles Facing the Trucking Industry Fluctuating Fuel Prices Fuel costs are a big expense for trucking companies. Volatility in oil prices can greatly impact their bottom line. Expensive fuel can make it difficult for companies, especially small ones, to make money and stay afloat. Stringent Regulations Trucking companies must follow many complex state and federal regulations, from vehicle pollution to how long drivers can work. Compliance with these regulations can be costly and time-consuming.  For example, the Electronic Logging Devices (ELD) mandate, which requires drivers to electronically record their driving hours, has imposed additional financial burdens on many operators. Labor Shortages The industry is currently facing a significant driver shortage. This is magnified by an aging workforce and the challenge of attracting younger drivers. This shortage can lead to increased wages and benefits costs, further straining the financial resources of trucking companies. Economic Downturns Recessions can lead to decreased demand for freight services, as businesses reduce production and consumers cut back on spending. Such downturns can be devastating for trucking companies, particularly those heavily reliant on industries sensitive to economic cycles, like manufacturing and retail. Rising Insurance Costs Trucking companies naturally face high insurance premiums because of the inherent risks associated with transporting goods over long distances. These costs have been steadily increasing, partly due to the rise in litigation and settlement amounts against trucking companies involved in accidents. Maintenance and Equipment Costs The cost of maintaining and updating trucks and equipment can be substantial. As technology advances, older vehicles may become obsolete or require expensive upgrades to remain compliant with regulatory standards. Why You Should Consider Declaring Bankruptcy Many people often view bankruptcy as a last resort, but it can provide a lifeline for trucking companies facing hard times. By filing for bankruptcy, a company can restructure its debts, reduce its obligations, and emerge as a more competitive and financially stable entity. Here are 5 benefits of filing for bankruptcy for your trucking company. Automatic Stay Upon filing for bankruptcy, an automatic stay is immediately enacted. This halts all collection activities, including lawsuits, repossessions, and foreclosures. This reprieve can provide trucking companies with the breathing room needed to reorganize without the constant pressure from creditors. Debt Restructuring Bankruptcy allows for the restructuring of debts. For example, under Chapter 11, a trucking company can propose a reorganization plan for renegotiating terms with creditors, downsizing operations to reduce costs, or liquidating assets to pay off debts. This process enables the company to realign its financial obligations with its current capacity to pay. Discharge of Unsecured Debts Bankruptcy can lead to the discharge of certain unsecured debts, such as credit card debts, unsecured business loans, and some judgments. Eliminating these obligations can significantly reduce the overall debt burden, freeing up resources for essential expenses like fuel, maintenance, and payroll. Contract and Lease Modifications Chapter 11 bankruptcy offers the opportunity to reject or modify existing contracts and leases that are no longer favorable or sustainable. This can be particularly useful for renegotiating lease terms on vehicles or equipment, potentially leading to lower monthly payments. Fresh Start Successfully emerging from bankruptcy can provide a trucking company with a fresh start. With a more manageable debt load and streamlined operation, the company can focus on profitability and long-term sustainability without the weight of past financial missteps. Navigating Bankruptcy in the Trucking Industry The decision to file for bankruptcy should not be taken lightly. It involves careful consideration of the company’s financial situation, future prospects, and the potential impact on employees, customers, and business relationships.  If your trucking company is at risk of going out of business, Lakelaw can help. With over 50 years of experience in bankruptcy law, David P. Leibowitz is nationally recognized for excellence by Super Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell, Lawdragon, and more. David has also represented numerous trucking companies and assisted them with cost reduction, reorganization, and asset liquidation. Get a Free Confidential Consultation The post Keep on Trucking: How to Steer Your Trucking Company Out of Bankruptcy appeared first on Lakelaw.

Bankr. M.D.N.C.: In re Miller- Fraud and Similar Claims Related to Denial of Mortgage Modifications Ed Boltz Wed, 02/21/2024 - 02:00 Summary: Yitzhak Miller  brought claims against related to the mortgage servicers related to  three rental properties: constructive fraud; fraudulent inducement;  negligent  misrepresentation;  breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing;  abuse of process; breach of settlement agreement  civil conspiracy;  UDTPA ;  racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The bankruptcy court dismissed the constructive fraud claims  finding,  in reliance on  Dallaire v. Bank of America that the defendant mortgage servicers did not have any fiduciary duty to Miller. As to fraudulent inducement,  Miller was required, with sufficient detail to satisfy Rule 9(b), to allege:  a false representation or concealment of a material fact,  that was reasonably calculated to deceive,  that was made with the intent to deceive,  which does in fact deceive,  resulting in damage to the injured party.”  Packrite, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., No. 1:17CV1019, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113428, at *7-8 (M.D.N.C. July 9, 2019).  Miller's generalized allegations that the loans implied they were for the borrower's principal residence and made in compliance with Fannie Mae guidelines  failed as insufficient.   Similarly the claims of negligent representation that the loans were "governed by regulations and/or trade practices intended to prevent unjustified foreclosures"  failed due to insufficient support.   The claim for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing failed because there was no "special relationship between the parties" beyond a contractual one.   Abuse of process   "is the misapplication of civil or criminal process to accomplish some purpose not warranted or commanded by the process" and requires a showing of the existence of an ulterior motive, and  an act  in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding. The bankruptcy court rejected the allegation that the foreclosures against the properties were sought for the improper purpose of "cheating [Miller] of the equity". Miller asserted breach of settlement claim   based on an agreement  to "stand down on all foreclosure efforts"  while he sought to sell one of the three properties,  with the anticipation of using the expected proceeds to bring the other to mortgages current.  Shortly after obtaining a contract to sell that first property,  the foreclosures were nonetheless immediately recommenced. Unfortunately for Miller,  the bankruptcy found there was no settlement contract,  as the mortgage servicer's North Carolina counsel had no authority regarding the property in Lousiana,  especially as any such oral settlement would not be enforceable as it lacked any specificity to constitute a contract. Because all of Miller's tort claims were dismissed, the civil conspiracy and UDTPA claims do not rest on any underlying tortious conduct and failed as well.   The racketeering claim failed as such requires the showing of an "enterprise" with  least four  features:  a purpose,  relationships among those associated with the enterprise, longevity sufficient to permit  these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose; and it  affected interstate commerce. Commentary: With the competing allegations that Miller submitted  multiple Requests for Mortgage Assistance (RM As)  but with Specialized asserting that those had not been received,  the underlying bankruptcy would certainly seem to have been an instance that could have benefited from Miller seeking to participate in the bankruptcy court's LMM program.  While strictly speaking that is limited to Chapter 13 debtors and their principal residence,  the underlying bases for that program could similarly allow this in a Chapter 11 case for rental properties. Whether Miller truly wanted  mortgage modifications or instead to use litigation to force negotiations for more reasonable terms is unclear. For a copy of the opinion, please see:   Blog comments Attachment Document in_re_miller.pdf (731.5 KB) Category North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases Middle District

I’ve long campaigned for compensation of bankruptcy practitioners that recognizes the practitioner’s skill set and the complexities of this practice. Without real-world compensation, bankruptcy can’t compete for legal talent. Alongside that campaign, I’ve expressed my concern about what Bill Rochelle calls the overlegalization of consumer bankruptcy. I see that in the increasing, and needless in […] The post Chapter 13 NoLook Fees: Fair vs. Affordable appeared first on Bankruptcy Mastery.

Bankr. M.D.N.C.: In re Myatt- Equitable Distribution Award for 401k effective without QDRO & still Excluded from Estate Ed Boltz Mon, 02/19/2024 - 17:23 Summary: The bankruptcy court overruled the chapter 7 trustee's objection to the debtor Catherine Myatt's claimed exemption in her interest in her former husband's 401(k) retirement account. The court found that the consent order entered in the Myatts' state court divorce proceeding, which incorporated their separation agreement, created Ms. Myatt's ownership interest in $22,677.31 of Mr. Myatt's 401(k) account.  The order constituted a final resolution of the Myatts' equitable distribution claims and fixed their rights in marital property.  Although a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) was contemplated to implement the transfer, the absence of a QDRO did not impact Ms. Myatt's vested interest established in the consent order. The court held that Ms. Myatt's interest in the 401(k) account funds was excluded from her bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2).  As an alternate payee of an ERISA-qualified retirement plan, Ms. Myatt could exclude her interest from the estate like the plan participant.  This exclusion applied notwithstanding the lack of a QDRO to effectuate the transfer.  The court found the result supported the public policy of protecting retirement assets during the period between an equitable distribution order and execution of a QDRO. Commentary: If anyone is a member of the NC Bar Association Family Law section, please share this case and summary there. For a copy of the opinion, please see:   Blog comments Attachment Document myatt.pdf (205.62 KB) Category North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases Middle District

What Are the Revised Department of Justice Guidelines for Discharging Student Loan Debt? Law Office Blogger Mon, 02/19/2024 - 06:43 As of February 14, 2024, the revised Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines for discharging student loan debt are still under evaluation after their initial implementation in November 2022. Here's what we know: Current guidelines (November 2022): Aim to make the discharge process fairer and more accessible. Encourage consistent treatment of student loan discharge across cases. Reduce the burden on borrowers trying to get discharge. Help identify cases where discharge is appropriate. Key components: Standardized process: Provides clear expectations for discharge proceedings. Stipulation and recommendation: DOJ attorneys can now stipulate to facts demonstrating "undue hardship" and recommend discharge if three conditions are met: Present inability to repay: Borrower cannot maintain basic living standards with required repayments. Persistent financial hardship: Circumstances suggest this will continue long-term. Good faith efforts: Borrower has sincerely tried to repay in the past. Early indications: Initial reports suggest the new process is increasing the number of discharges. Evaluation and potential updates: DOJ and Department of Education are currently assessing the first year of implementation. Based on feedback, future updates might further streamline the process or refine criteria for discharge. Blog comments

Long-term disability insurance offers a financial lifeline when an individual is unable to work because of a disabling condition. Despite their critical role, these claims often face denials for various reasons, leaving claimants in an unsettling position. If your claim has been denied, do not worry. Our experienced team is here to help you appeal the decision and get the benefits you need. We will help you gather additional evidence to strengthen your case and can represent you at any hearings scheduled. Insurance companies will look for any reason to deny a claim, so it is unsurprising if one is denied because of a simple procedural error. In many cases, having an attorney on your side will be enough to keep the insurance company from playing games. If the denial is upheld, we can explore further options to get the compensation you deserve. Call our New Jersey disability attorneys at Young, Marr, Mallis & Deane at (609) 755-3115 for a free case review. Reasons Why Long-Term Disability Claims Get Denied in New Jersey Long-term disability insurance policies are designed to replace a portion of your income if you become disabled and cannot work. Despite the clear benefits of these policies, many individuals find their claims denied for various reasons. When this happens, our New Jersey disability lawyers will be waiting to help you fight the decision and get the benefits you need. More often than not, providing additional documentation will be enough to get your claim approved. However, some denials might be harder to fight. Lack of Medical Evidence When filing for long-term disability claims, it is crucial to provide sufficient medical evidence to support the claim. Insurance companies require extensive proof that the claimant’s medical condition is severe enough to prevent them from working. This typically includes detailed medical records, doctor’s notes, test results, treatment plans, and more. The medical evidence should be comprehensive enough to convince the insurance provider that the claimant is genuinely unable to work because of their condition. Failing to provide sufficient and convincing medical evidence could lead to the denial of the claim. Therefore, you should work closely with your healthcare provider to ensure that all the required documentation is provided and accurately represents your medical condition. Pre-existing Condition Exclusions Long-term disability policies are meant to provide financial protection to individuals who are unable to work because of an injury or illness. However, many of these policies contain pre-existing condition exclusions. This means that if a disability arises from a condition that the claimant had before obtaining the policy, the insurance company might not cover the claim. The specifics of these exclusions can vary greatly between policies. Some policies might have a look-back period, which means that the insurance company will review the claimant’s medical records for a certain period of time prior to the policy’s start date. If the claimant was diagnosed with a condition during this period, the insurance company might deny the claim. Other policies might have a broader exclusion that applies to any condition the claimant had before obtaining the policy. Also, some policies might only exclude certain conditions, while others might exclude all pre-existing conditions. To avoid any surprises, you should carefully review your policy’s terms and conditions. If you have any questions about the pre-existing condition exclusion or any other aspect of your policy, our team can answer them. Failure to Meet the Policy’s Definition of Disability Disability insurance policies come with varying definitions of disability. While some policies define disability as an inability to perform the duties of one’s own occupation, others require that the person be unable to perform the duties of any occupation. This means that if you are unable to perform the duties of your current job but can still perform the duties of another job, you might not qualify for disability benefits under some policies. It is important to carefully review your policy’s specific definition of disability to ensure that you are covered in case of disability. Failure to meet your policy’s definition of disability might result in claim denial, so it is crucial to understand the terms and conditions of your policy before making a claim. Procedural Errors Filing for long-term disability typically involves intricate procedures and strict deadlines that can make the whole exercise quite complex. Failure to comply with these procedures and deadlines can result in a claim denial. Some of the reasons why a claim can be denied include missing deadlines for filing claims or appeals, not providing requested information promptly, or failing to exhaust all internal appeals before filing a lawsuit. Therefore, it is essential to work with our firm to familiarize yourself with the procedures and deadlines that apply to your specific case to avoid any mistakes that can lead to a claim denial. Non-compliance with Treatment Insurance companies might also deny a claim if the claimant is not adhering to the prescribed treatment for their medical condition. The insurers expect the claimants to make reasonable efforts to recover from their disability, which includes following the treatment plans set out by their physicians. This means that the claimant should attend all medical appointments, take medications as prescribed, and participate in any recommended therapies, such as physiotherapy or counseling sessions. If the claimant does not comply with the prescribed treatment, the insurer might view this as a lack of effort on the claimant’s part to recover and, therefore, deny the claim. Surveillance and Social Media When individuals file for disability claims with their insurance provider, they might not realize that their insurer could be watching them beyond just their medical records. Insurers often employ surveillance teams and scour social media to investigate the validity of a disability claim. They might look for any evidence that contradicts the claimant’s reported limitations, such as photos or videos of the claimant engaging in physical activities or performing tasks that they claimed they were unable to do. This evidence might be used to deny the claim, as insurers consider it as proof that the claimant’s limitations might not be as severe as they initially reported. What to Do if Your Long-Term Disability Claim Gets Denied in New Jersey Understanding why your claim was denied is the first step toward formulating an effective appeal strategy. Your denial letter should provide specific reasons for the denial, like those listed above, and information about your right to appeal. Carefully reviewing this letter with your attorney will help identify any errors or inconsistencies that can be addressed in your appeal. If your claim was denied because of insufficient medical evidence, gathering additional evidence can strengthen your appeal. This might include additional medical records, statements from your treating physicians, or even independent medical evaluations. If your appeal is denied, you usually have the option to file a lawsuit in federal court. Our New Jersey Disability Attorneys Are Here to Help You Get the Benefits You Deserve For a free case review, contact our New Jersey disability lawyers by calling Young, Marr, Mallis & Deane at (609) 755-3115.

Many clients who have defaulted on SBA loans receive a letter from the SBA indicating that their loan has been charged off. They ask us if this means the loan has been forgiven and does not need to be paid back.“Charging off” is an accounting concept that  allows the SBA to remove the loan from its books and records  as an asset, but the SBA can still try to collect the debt.Simply stated, charging off or charged off does not mean that a loan is forgiven!Even though the loan is charged off, the borrower still owes the money and the SBA can continue collection efforts.Collection methods include lawsuits, foreclosure on assets, garnishing wages, reporting the default to Treasury Direct (so that the Government can seize tax refunds) and reporting the default to credit bureaus. So in summary, a charge off is an accounting procedure but does not relieve the borrower of repayment responsibility. The SBA treats the charge off as a default and it will pursue further collection even after charge off.Clients or their advisors with questions about defaulted SBA loans should contact Jim Shenwick, Esq.  917 363 3391  jshenwick@gmail.comJim Shenwick, Esq  917 363 3391  jshenwick@gmail.com Please click the link to schedule a telephone call with me.https://calendly.com/james-shenwick/15minWe held individuals & businesses with too much debt!

Law Review: Alexandra P. Sickler, Big Banks & Small Consequences in Chapter 13, 39 Emory Bankr. Dev. J. 559 (2023). Stafford Patterson Sat, 02/17/2024 - 05:01 Abstract: Mortgage creditors struggle to properly service mortgages in chapter 13 cases, as evidenced by numerous cases describing violations of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1. The consumer bankruptcy system, however, is not calibrated to compel system wide compliance from these large, institutional repeat actors. This Essay argues that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is well-suited to support the consumer bankruptcy system by exercising its monitoring and enforcement powers to promote, and even compel, mortgage creditor compliance in chapter 13 cases.Commentary: The CFPB has previously waded into bankruptcy mortgage waters,  notably with its promulgation of forms for Periodic Monthly Statements (PMS)  for mortgage accounts.  While initially inapplicable to mortgages that were involved in bankruptcy, whether Chapter 7 or Chapter 13,  eventually after extensive stakeholder meetings (in which I participated) the CFPB developed a model PMS for home mortgages that with remarkable clarity for homeowners provides accurate information about their mortgage,  whether reaffirmed or not,  including distinguishing pre- and post-petition payments and arrearages. A further advantage of engaging the CFPB with oversight of mortgage in bankruptcy would be that it improves the recognition  in its non-bankruptcy enforcement actions that there is almost certainly a bankruptcy component to a settlement  or resolution.  Too often those actions fail to compel mortgage servicers to take actions,  including amending proofs of claim, in bankruptcy cases to reflect those settlements. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Blog comments Attachment Document big_banks_small_consequences_in_chapter_13.pdf (580.12 KB) Category Law Reviews & Studies

Many people who cannot work due to a disability often rely on long-term disability benefits like Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). If you are receiving benefits like these, you should talk to a lawyer about the possibility of termination and how to avoid it. Your long-term disability benefits may be terminated under certain circumstances, even if you do not believe you are ready to live without them. Many people see their benefits terminated when the administration in charge of them, usually the Social Security Administration (SSA), determines the recipient can perform substantial gainful activity and no longer needs their benefits. This might come after you engage in a trial work period. Your benefits might also be terminated if, after a routine medical exam, it is determined that your medical condition no longer meets the SSA’s definition of a disability. If you are worried about losing your benefits, ask an attorney for help. If your benefits have already been terminated or will be soon, your lawyer can help you appeal the termination. Call our Pennsylvania disability benefits attorneys for a free case evaluation by calling Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954. Termination of SSDI Benefits When You Return to Work in Pennsylvania SSDI benefits may be paid to people whose injuries are considered disabilities that prevent them from working. Getting approved for these benefits is notoriously difficult, and many people are denied multiple times before finally being approved. While these benefits can be a major help, many people do not want to rely on them forever. Trial work periods allow people to test their ability to work without risking their benefits. However, depending on how things go, your benefits might be terminated. Our Pennsylvania disability benefits lawyers can help you begin a TWP in a way that allows you to work while protecting your benefits. Recipients of SSDI benefits may test their ability to work again while still receiving the full value of their SSDI benefits. This is known as a Trial Work Period (TWP). You may count up to 9 months of work toward your TWP. These 9 months do not have to be consecutive and may be taken whenever you wish. For example, you might spend some time recovering while collecting SSDI benefits before trying to go back to work for a month. If things do not work out, you can stop working and continue collecting SSDI benefits. The month you worked counts toward your 9 months of TWP. No matter how much money you make during your trial work period, your benefits should continue to be paid. However, if you continue working beyond the allotted 9 months, you enter a 36-month Extended Period of Eligibility. If you continue to work, the SSA may evaluate your earnings and overall ability to work. If your earnings meet the limit for substantial gainful activity (SGA), your SSDI benefits might be terminated. Exactly what is considered substantial gainful activity changes each year. For 2024, non-blind people earning at least $2,590 per month will be considered as earning SGA. If you are blind, the amount for SGA is $1,550. This number may be adjusted each year for things like cost of living changes and inflation. How Changes in Your Medical Condition Might Lead to the Termination of Long-Term Disability Benefits in Pennsylvania You do not necessarily have to exhaust your TWP or actually perform substantial gainful activity for your benefits to be terminated. People who receive long-term disability benefits like SSDI usually have to submit to medical exams every so often so the SSA can make sure they still have a qualifying medical condition. For many, their conditions are permanent, and they might always need their benefits. For others, their condition might improve over time. If a doctor finds that your condition has improved to the point that you can work, your benefits might be subject to termination. This does not necessarily mean you must make a full recovery or be able to perform the same work you were doing before your disability. Perhaps your condition improves enough that you can do some other type of work that still constitutes SGA. If your doctor believes your condition is improving, contact a Berks County, PA disability attorney. Your lawyer can help you hold on to your disability benefits if you believe you are not ready or still unable to return to work. How to Prevent Your Long-Term SSDI Benefits From Being Terminated in Pennsylvania To prevent your disability benefits from being terminated, you should consult with an attorney about your situation. If you are considering working during a Trial Work Period, talk to your lawyer first. It would be best to understand how much money is considered SGA and whether you can earn that much during a TWP. If you tried working for a bit but did not earn enough money to be considered SGA, your lawyer can help you protect your benefits. Just be sure to keep documentation of your work and paychecks during any TWP month. We can also help you protect your benefits if you believe you have not improved enough to work or earn SGA despite what a doctor might have said. Doctors are not always correct. If you were examined by a doctor selected or approved by the SSA, we can find another doctor for a second opinion. If the second doctor comes to a different conclusion than the first, we might be able to protect your benefits. What to Do if Your SSDI Benefits Are Terminated in Pennsylvania If your benefits have been terminated or will be soon, talk to a lawyer immediately. If your benefits are terminated, you must be given the chance to appeal the decision. We can file a Request for Reconsideration and work to get the termination reversed. This might be a great strategy if your benefits were terminated based on shaky evidence or because of some sort of error or misunderstanding. Call Our Pennsylvania Disability Benefits Attorneys for Help Protecting Your Benefits Call our Allentown, PA disability benefits attorneys for a free case evaluation by calling Young, Marr, Mallis & Associates at (215) 515-2954.