Jan 10, 2016

Lawsuit On Social Security Hearing Backlogs

     From a press release:
The attorneys and certified legal interns from Miami Law’s Health Rights Clinic have filed a federal suit against the Social Security Administration on behalf of 12 indigent and disabled clients who have been waiting as long as 26 months to secure a hearing or receive rulings from a Social Security judge.
The suit asks the government to compel the Social Security Administration to “promptly schedule, hear, and adjudicate” the claims of their clients. ...
Miami has the longest wait times in the country.  “We don’t know exactly why this is the case,” said Zach Lipshultz, a third-year law student in the Clinic, who is working on the case. “It might be due to a lack of administrative judges, or staffing, or something else with Social Security. It might also relate to the extreme poverty and extreme need for disability benefits in Miami-Dade County.” ...
     The problem with this lawsuit is that the Supreme Court ruled on something like it in 1984 in Heckler v. Day. The Court held that a class action could not be used to force Social Security hearings to be held within a time deadline. However, the Court did indicate that individual actions concerning delays at Social Security would still be allowed. It appears that the Miami case isn't a class action, just a normal civil action that happens to have a number of plaintiffs seeking relief. If bringing a lawsuit on behalf of a number of claimants works, expect to see such lawsuits proliferating around the country. 
     For those who think that the federal courts wouldn't possibly do something about the backlogs, don't be so sure. There is a right wing majority on the Supreme Court but the lower courts, including most Courts of Appeals, are increasingly dominated by Democratic appointees. If the Courts of Appeals keep ruling for the plaintiffs in such cases, the Supreme Court probably won't hear a case on the issue.
     By the way, at the time of the Day decision the average hearing backlog was only about nine months if I remember correctly, a fraction of what it is today.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

At some point the backlog is going to cause the whole system to be revamped. The seams are already starting to fray. Only a matter of time

Anonymous said...

A significant part of this problem lays at the feet of OPM whose flawed screening process (1) makes it impossible for SSA to hire the number of ALJs it has the budget to hire and (2) significantly inhibits every agency's ability to hire consistently high-quality candidates.

Anonymous said...

Not holding my breath. But kudos to this law school for trying something. It only takes a few cases like this for a federal court to compel SSA to get better. Because Congress will certainly demand it apparently.

James said...

I WORKED AT SSA FOR 35 YEAR'S AND AM STILL TYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THEY HAVEN'T CLAIMED BANKRUPTSY YET!!!!

Anonymous said...

Part of the problem is the number of cases requiring interpreters and these cases take longer.. Just the facts, Jack.

Anonymous said...

SSA has funding to hire but chooses to limit its hires. SSA chooses to apply its own selective certification to seek indoctrinated insiders and those who will be led by the nose to disbelieve claimants or find fraud under every rock. SSA chooses against private practitioners who represent real people who aren't perfect (who have represented the credible and been burned by the incredible). SSA chooses to weaken the APA's protections for claimants by hiring only those "high-quality" candidates they believe will spend not more than 2.5 hours affirming 85% of cases. Instead of hiring, SSA chooses to ignore the backlog in favor of complaining about OPM's "flawed screening process" when SSA helped design the exam - including the cartoon vignettes. ACUS recommended against the use of selective certification as that "undesirable inbreeding" is a political tool used to control the outcome of APA hearings. SSA chooses not to hire those (low-quality candidates?) who may not get drunk on Agency kool aid. The decision to not hire is SSA's choice - because the Agency would like more control over outcomes - but it is not OPM's fault.

Anonymous said...

Backlog? What backlog? Remember the 999 Day Claims.

This is butter people!

Anonymous said...

Attorneys in Florida appear to have more cahones than in CA. I applaud their fervor & desire to show some of the SSA's big flaws. That being said, the claim was well over 24 months & the SSA's doctors report mentioned the backlog, which I believe was their excuse way back when for the delay. WHAT wasn't mentioned was the real reason for the delay & was that the SSA CR changed the application date to almost a year later, thus aiding in delaying my benefits & greatly reducing my correct monthly benefit rate. As far as the "undesirable inbreeding", low quality candidates, I couldn't agree more since everyone SSA employee I've met or talked to all of these years are of the same thought and so this is taught from above like the SSA OIG who takes it's directives form Congress ( undesirable inbreds too) all to save money for the SSA & it's deliberately inept employees. Be guaranteed, none of them will have to wait for any of their owed benefits, since they all know the ropes & the same undesirable inbreds.