Disability due to pregancy

by Guest » Sat Sep 01, 2012 01:50 am
Guest

Hello. This question might be confusing but any help is greatly appreciated. I live in the state of California. I was laid-off from work in April 2011 and was on extended unemployment until July 2012. I did however start working part-time in March 2012 but was still able to collect unemployment because my wages were still low. In August 2012, my doctor placed me on Disability due to pregnancy related issues. My question is based on my "base period" of which they determine the amount of disability you qualify for, I was on unemployment for three of the quarters. When I did start working, my pay was reduced tremendously from the time I was working prior to being on unemployment due to the fact that I was working part time. My question is on the disability website there is a section that talks about considering your pay before you were on unemployment as your base period if your wages were reduced refereed to as "special base period". I want to know if there is a way that I would qualify for this. When I called the EDD department they stated that I would over the phone, however now that my first payment has came through that is not the case. I called them back, and now they are stating that I have enough wages in my base period to have a valid claim. However as I stated above they have a section that says if your wages were reduced due to long term disability then they will consider your wages prior to being on disability. How can I find the correct answer to my question. Any help/suggestions is greatly appreciated.

Total Comments: 17

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:26 am Post Subject:

You may find the answer to your question in this publication from the CA EDD: http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de2515.pdf

If you feel your claim has been improperly determined, you may file an appeal with the EDD. Read the information posted here: http://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/Appeals.htm

Your situation does not involve a "long term disability." You were receiving unemployment benefits for the largest part of your "base benefit" period -- the four consecutive quarters preceding your SDI claim. UI benefits are not subject to SDI withholding, so your base benefit wages will be determined by the wages you did have in the remaining months or weeks of your 12-month base benefit period. Those periods are specifically described on the EDD website. I have highlighted the words that apply to your situation (as you described it above):

"If an individual’s claim begins on or after January 1, 2010:

= January, February, or March, the base period is the 12 months ending last September 30. (Example: A claim beginning February 14, 2010, uses a base period of October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009.)
= April, May, or June, the base period is the 12 months ending last December 31. (Example: A claim beginning June 20, 2010, uses a base period of January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009.)
= July, August, or September, the base period is the 12 months ending last March 31. (Example: A claim beginning September 27, 2010, uses a base period of April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.)
= October, November, or December, the base period is the 12 months ending last June 30. (Example: A claim beginning November 2, 2010, uses a base period of July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010.)

For a SDI claim to be valid, an individual must have at least $300 in wages in the base period. The weekly benefit amount is determined by using the quarter in which an individual was paid the highest wages."
http://www.edd.ca.gov/disability/Base_Period.htm

According to your post, your base period for an August 2012 SDI claim runs from April 1 2011 to March 31, 2012. If you had wages of at least $300, you are eligible for a benefit of at least $50 per week. The three-month quarter (Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep, Oct-Dec, or Jan-Mar) in which you had the highest wages will determine your benefit amount and duration.

When you speak of a "special base period", I believe you are confused. There is nothing such as this in the SDI program that I am aware of. There is an "alternative base period" which may be applied under certain circumstances to determine Unemployment benefits, but UI and SDI benefits are entirely different. Your confusion may stem from the fact that CA EDD administers both programs, and it is easy to go to the EDD website and look at SDI and/or UI information and think you are looking at information for one of the two programs when you are actually looking at information about the other.

Understand that the people you talk to at EDD are state employees who are public employee labor union members. They are paid for showing up to work, not for the advice/answers they give to their "clients", which is not always accurate. They live and work in a fantasy world completely disconnected from the reality of the world in which all the rest of us live.

Their primary concern is for their own pay and retirement benefits, not you or your UI or SDI benefits. They are disgruntled at having to take "furlough days" without pay -- the direct result of their ridiculous, never-ending demands for increased pay and retirement benefits . . . which the state truly cannot afford to pay, but has no other choice thanks to federal law (ERISA). At least not until the state is forced to file for bankruptcy, courtesy of the public employee labor unions and their fantasy wage and benefits game.

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 09:00 pm Post Subject: Pregnancy related Disability response

This is the information that is provided on the EDD/Disability website regarding Special Base Period.


"Under certain circumstances, the law permits substitution of wages paid in quarters prior to the normal base period of a claim in order to make a claim valid and/or increase the weekly benefit amount. Special base period cases include cases where an individual’s wages during the normal base period were adversely affected by: military service, industrial disability, trade dispute, or long-term unemployment.

I went ahead and bolded out the sections which I feel would pertain to my situation. First off it states that it would be used to increase benefit amount, not just to make a claim valid. I understand that if you have over $300 in earnings your claim is valid, however that clearly is not what I am arguing over. It goes on to state that it would apply of an individuals wages were ADVERSELY affected due to long-term unemployment. I believe my case would represent that. Prior to being laid-off I was making $15000 per quarter. Once I was laid off during my base period from April-June 2011 I have around $4000 in pay and that is due to my last paycheck from April when I got laid-off. Then I have no pay until the last quarter of the base period from Jan-March 2012 from part time employment in March 2012. So looking at this figures I would agree that my wages were adversely affected during my base-period. I was not even close to making half of what I was during the time that I was employed. Even though I can not prove what I was told over the phone when I called the EDD department on several occasions, would this statement on their website not be sufficient to justify my claim? Thank you again for your time and response.

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 02:24 am Post Subject:

First, I stand corrected on the subject of "Special Base Period." But notice that it begins with "Under certain circumstances . . ."

When it comes to "long-term unemployment" EDD's definition and yours may be somewhat different. That, I don't know. I have a personal friend who works for EDD (what she does, I don't know either), and I can ask her about it, if you want.

Send me an email with your contact information and some more specifics of your situation, and I'll inquire without revealing your identity.

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 08:07 pm Post Subject:

Hello I have been trying to get your email address to follow up with you rlast pst, however I have been unsuccessful..Where can I get your email address?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 03:55 am Post Subject:

If you look at my last post above yours, just above the "Post Subject" is a link to my email address. You can also click on the blue, underlined link "Send me your questions . . ."

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 08:31 pm Post Subject: DI amt low due to long-term UI

I am in a similar situation as Guest2012. What was the final determination. Was her benefit amount increased? If so what was the process. I have tried everything that I have been advised to do by the DI workers I've been lucky to get a hold of.

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 03:42 am Post Subject:

Never heard a word.

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 04:44 am Post Subject:

Thank you. I received a letter today stating that they have paid me what they should have. I had earnings in the first quarter of the base period. However, it was for hours worked the last two weeks of the quarter prior to it. My DI claim paid 1/4 of what my UI claim is paying. It states that I can appeal but it just feels like I would be stating the same facts and just waiting to be denied an increase again.

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 01:00 pm Post Subject:

Maybe that's what they're hoping for . . . that you go away instead of petitioning for what you believe is yours. Social Security, for example, denies about 80% of first time disability applications, but awards about 90% of all appeals . . . the only problem . . . less than 30% of denials result in appeals.

You have nothing to lose, so why give up?

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 02:29 pm Post Subject:

Thanks for the pep talk... :) I will appeal and will let you know the outcome

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.