so he's getting his monthly checks but not the back pay?
I realize this is a resurrected bonfire and I'd love to hear an update but...I wonder if the hold up is that it must clear the lawyer first? He says the lawyer "was paid 5k" but he doesn't say that the lawyer received said funds. His comment about the lawyer saying "blah, blah, blah..." leads me to believe the problem may be in the attorney's office.
I thought of something else after my previous post, above.
One has to remember how the primitives think.
It's possible--in fact, damned near probable--the tovaritch primitive "thinks" he's "entitled" to circa $30,000 in back benefits, and has transferred his faulty perception of reality into fact.
I have no idea how this whole thing works, but based upon personal observation (I do income taxes, remember), it actually probably is that the tovaritch primitive was "entitled" to circa $5,000 in back benefits, based upon the time he applied for them.
The tovaritch primitive, being a primitive, "thinks," probably, that he's "eligible" for benefits going back to his disability (not the date of his application), which might or might not be circa $30,000.
Most such payments, for individuals with no dependents, are something a little under a thousand bucks a month, and at least around here in Nebraska, by the time such cases are settled, there's circa $4-5-6,000 in back benefits "owed" the recipient.
And then of course there's the commission one must pay the attorney--and no matter what else one might say about attorneys, attorneys are really good in telling, up front and in large print, their expected payment.
If anyone more knowledgeable about such things thinks I need corrected, please do so.
Or it could be the tovaritch primitive has governmental debts he conveniently forgets to remember and admit to.