Hi again! With regard to your follow up:
How funny! You must think I am a foolish one. Lol, no, not at all - but I could tell we were not on the same page.
On my smart phone it is so hard to read the small screen and I did not catch the comma. I get it now. Please excuse. ;-)) No problem. I can't even DO these answers on my iPhone - I'd go blind and my fingers would hurt. So you are a step ahead of me :)
The argument that I am pursing is that I thought that filing for a Social Security card for my child would cover anything that pertained to benefits under Social Security. I assumed that my child was not eligible for any monies since nothing was ever granted. OK, I do recall that. Now, if you could find caselaw that supports the argument that your thinking this was reasonable AND should be a basis for giving you a protective filing way back when, that would be best. It may or may not exist.
I used your wording to put something together that made any sense. Please let me know if that is how I should present it or if anything needs to be changed. Ah, you are asking for near impossible. Since this is not yet IN the law, there is no real way I can say, "make it say this, so you win." But, I suppose I can give an opinion on if what you are saying is at least clear to a reader.
I do not know what I would have done if it were not for your advice and expertise and verbiage. Ugh. I only wish it were enough - but it is not necessarily. Part of the reason it is an uphill battle is that if they granted you your wish, they'd have to pay out billions of dollars for every other child like yours. Because they haven't charged premiums to accommodate the type of outlay (not expecting it perhaps, I'd bet the fund would be bankrupted. You see what I am saying?
I would like to appeal SSA's decision regardless, because I believe if I do not do so, then the decision is closed definitely. Yes, that is likely so.
If I file the appeal, you never know if for some reason a new person rules differently in my favor or the law changes YES, this part!
and that will protective grab today's date as the date of application for backpay for this claim. You don't want todays date - you want the date you filed for your child's SS number.
I thought that by applying for a social security card for my newborn, I would be qualifying my child and me for any benefits that we were eligible for. I would have thought that SSA was recognizing and aware of the relationship? (After all, don't they require that when I apply for my child's #, I have to put down my number and my name, so we are connected? - check if that is so on a child's application.)
The birth and SS card of my baby, should be a constructive application (love your verbiage!)- I stand by this because clearly ANY PARENT would have done any technical steps at that time, HAD they known. It is clearly not a situation where ANY parent would refrain from any benefits - since these benefits do NOT take away from the disabled parent benefits in any way.
Unfortunately, the law still has it that an application for a SS number is XXXXX an application for retirement, disability, or aux. benefits. (While the former two make sense, it does not make sense for the latter, Aux. benefit. This is because unlike the first 2 kinds of benefits, there are good reasons why an individual would not file for retirement - because he may not have hit retirement age, or he may want to achieve delayed retirement credits. And one may not choose to apply for disability because that requires being medically disabled. Aux. benefits to a child, however, come with no such extra strings - the mere relationship to the disabled parent makes him "eligible" for benefits.
The fact that the CHILD can not be blamed for ignorance of the law - even if his/her parent could be (which I am also not saying is fair, because the laws are so convoluted and voluminous, the old saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse" doesn't really sound quite right these days, for technical laws that are not obvious laws. (I did APPLY for something for my child - his SS#, understanding, incorrectly as it turned out, however illogically, that this would provide him the rights and responsibilities of having such an SS#. Also, I understand that when a parent has a child when she is NOT disabled, but later becomes disabled and files a Title II (SSDIB) claim, filing for disability benefits DOES include questions about dependents and the SSA makes sure those children DO get their Aux. benefits. It would seem to only make sense that the SSA would do the same for parents who are already disabled and THEN have a child.)
Clearly the SSA has the ability to connect her SS# XXXXX mine, and her's is connected to my disability, etc. It seems to be an overt (or passive actually) way of avoiding a clear eligibility for child's benefits - kind of like "see no evil, hear no evil" - see no 'claim', hear no 'claim' = no need to pay the claim.
I want to argue that clearly if a parent KNEW there was a need for special language to articulate an "intent" to claim benefits, a parent would have done so for the child, since no one in her right mind would forego insurance benefits for the child if they knew that they would otherwise be coming. Yes, I think you do this quite well!
If, I keep this going and let's say in 5 years the law finally changes. At that time, and if the new law does not only apply prospectively but retroactively, I could be looking at a lump sum. Yes. Long shot, but yes. And there you have the child's college fund!!