Sep 15, 2016

Re-Recon Back?

     I got this recently. Is this a sign of the new re-recon? If it is, I don't expect it to amount to much. This sort of thing doesn't seem like a priority. Even if it were, the staffing isn't there to do much.
     By the way, notice that "DDS Case Number." It wasn't the claimant's Social Security number. Is this a sign that Social Security itself will start moving away from the use of the Social Security number as much as possible?

6 comments:

Dan Smith said...

I remember seeing these notices in files when I was an associate at a volume practice a few years ago.

10 days is pretty short notice when it comes to updating medical records. In the past, was it possible to communicate with the examiner and ask for short extensions when necessary?

Anonymous said...

If this case was at the hearing level, if appears the ALJ sent it back to State Agency. If it is just a straight recon, your local State Agency sent the case to this office to do the recon; I've been told it's because the local State Agency is slammed with cases.
The address given is for a component at OCO which is a State Agency; other Payment Centers (Program Service Centers) have them too, WNPSC and SEPSC to name two I've dealt with.
In my experience with initial claims and reconsiderations, State Agencies always use an internal "Case Number" rather than an SSN. No reason why ODAR/SSA would change its policy; recently, SSA told another Federal agency, which is pushing for no use of SSNs by the Feds, that the SSN is an integral part of its claims process and SSA will continue to use SSNs.

Anonymous said...

Dan, to answer your question, in the past we would be able to get a short extension to provide updated records with some adjudicators/examiners. Its pretty much a waste of time though in most cases because all the folks could do was issue a fully favorable decision if recall how it worked correctly. So providing updated records typically wouldn't do anything to help establish onset unless there were records that the State agency didn't have in the past or it was a will not last denial.

Anonymous said...

it's called an informal remand. a desperate attempt to reduce the hearings backlog.

Brian Scott Wayson said...

I do not think it is an informal remand, at least the ones we have requested / dealt with under POMS Section DI 27520.001 have looked different. An IR would be sent to the same state agency that made the Recon. denial per Hallex I-2-5-10. So if this unit made the RD, then maybe it is an IR.

I do not know how many Maryland clients Mr. Hall has, but we have this same unit looking at some of our cases and we are Oregon-based and I know this unit did make the Recon decision. So, this seems more related to some national effort to clear cases - whatever the initiative is named.

Anonymous said...

2:07 is correct, it's an informal remand