tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post8717889656147456758..comments2024-03-28T18:46:20.316-04:00Comments on Social Security News: Wonder How This HappenedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-31960270244890109732015-04-04T13:20:32.461-04:002015-04-04T13:20:32.461-04:00This is unbelievable!This is unbelievable!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-73221462997930704732015-04-04T10:10:59.820-04:002015-04-04T10:10:59.820-04:00There is a mindset in some corners of Social Secur...There is a mindset in some corners of Social Security, such as the quality branch at the Appeals Council, that looks on as illegitimate allowances based on the inability to perform a significant range of sedentary unskilled work or work on a sustained routine basis. Policy through "quality" has blown up in the Agency's face before and will probably blow up in its face again. In the end, the warped interpretation of well established case law and regulations eventually gets shot down by the courts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-51957894882942045302015-04-02T18:16:35.968-04:002015-04-02T18:16:35.968-04:00It really is the Wild West. Judges and the agency ...It really is the Wild West. Judges and the agency just do whatever they want without concern for consequences because there are none.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-89096113522638822062015-04-02T01:24:34.279-04:002015-04-02T01:24:34.279-04:00Interestingly, the original transmittal is still p...Interestingly, the original transmittal is still published online at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/reference.nsf/links/02132015015918PM.<br /><br />The 'example' language still appears there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-21382498621914146802015-04-01T18:51:09.960-04:002015-04-01T18:51:09.960-04:00The POMS example (before its disappearance) is exa...The POMS example (before its disappearance) is exactly the sort of thing SSA should do more of. There are still plenty of types of limitations (and combos of limitations) which, while not meeting listing requirements, should uniformly result in a finding of disability. The more obvious of those should be explicitly set out in guidance. <br /><br />SSA should do what it can to reduce the inconsistency in adjudication results for cases with very similar profiles. More such guidance would help that cause. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-65064143911241433282015-04-01T14:26:43.451-04:002015-04-01T14:26:43.451-04:00
This is unusual. SSA would never have attempted t...<br />This is unusual. SSA would never have attempted this in past years. Changes are not made to POMS without several write offs. Suspect someone in policy is making a power move and assuming Colvin’ star-chamber will not notice. Doubt it can be legally done this way, but such is the lawless SSA climate we live in. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-38797118826844553672015-04-01T12:37:08.406-04:002015-04-01T12:37:08.406-04:00Yeah, so many of the SSI people are getting someon...Yeah, so many of the SSI people are getting someone's money back, only not theirs... Knowing the intent of the Agency, I never follow Hallex or POMS as controlling. unless it is beneficial. Question is, beneficial to who?? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19246708.post-70005622588706630122015-04-01T10:30:31.310-04:002015-04-01T10:30:31.310-04:00Oh no, we accidentally made a rule where people ca...Oh no, we accidentally made a rule where people can get benefits approved. And we hid a little gem in an SSR saying POMS applies to all decision makers. Quick, delete the internets! We cannot have the people getting their money back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com