Phil had to cobble together a disability finding from a series of vague complaints that he could only back up with "objective medical evidence" by shopping doctors until he had a combo of documented claims that enabled him to win.
Chris, by comparison, had a documented history of disability from an early age and Chris's is permanent with only ordinary periodic reviews.
Phil's will eventually be reevaluated and it is quite likely that he will either be found to have improved or, more likely, that he has been completely noncompliant with treatment and therefore doesn't get to keep cashing tard bucks as a result.
Chris's tugboat is pretty much assured of continuing to sail so long as he lives.
Phil's? Not so much. So he's nowhere near as salty as he will be if his case is reviewed.