Apr 27, 2007

From The NOSSCR Conference -- Lisa De Soto

This is my final set of notes from last week's conference of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR). I have written a summary of what I thought the speaker's important points were, with some comments by me in brackets. Lisa de Soto is the head of Social Security's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review(ODAR):
  • A bit of Lisa de Soto's biography was given in her introduction. See it in the post just below this. [I have no doubt that Ms. de Soto is a bright woman, but this background is just too offbeat for someone in her position. She has only been at Social Security for five years.]
  • ODAR's name may be changed. [Is there anyone who likes the name ODAR?]
  • Quick Disability Determinations (QDD), a part of the Disability Service Improvement plan of former Commissioner Barnhart now undergoing a trial in the Boston region, may go national soon. [But is QDD anything different than what is already done to expedite the disability claims of those who are most seriously ill?]
  • Commissioner Astrue is interested in expanding the Listings of impairments.
  • Commissioner Astrue is looking at "collapsing" the Disability Review Board (DRB), which is a part of the DSI experiment, and the Appeals Council. [Nancy Shor said that this might end up being called DRB, pronounced "drab." That acronym does not come tripping gladly off my tongue.]
  • ODAR has 750,000 cases pending.
  • De Soto regards 400,000 cases pending at ODAR as a normal pipeline of cases, needed to make sure the staff stays busy. [Now you can see why I am doing that survey on what sort of goal ODAR should have on how long it takes for a claimant to get a hearing. De Soto thinks that about nine months is an appropriate goal. The vast majority who have responded to my unscientific poll think that Social Security should be aiming at something below six months. De Soto's inexperience shows here, in my opinion. Until the last six years, ODAR (or the Office of Hearings and Appeals as it used to be called) seldom had a backlog of more than nine months at any time in its history which dates back more than 50 years. I found de Soto's statement disturbing.]
  • Until recently, ODAR had 26,000 cases where claimants had been waiting over 1,000 days for a hearing. That number has been reduced to 18,000. [1,000 days is almost three years! This is how low things Social Security has sunk.]
  • ODAR is disposing of about 550,000 requests for hearing per year.
  • ODAR is getting more FTEs. [FTE means full time equivalents. Basically, she is saying she is getting to hire more employees.]
  • De Soto said that the agency was looking at having personnel at Social Security look at cases in which a request for hearing had been filed to see if some could be sent back for another review at the reconsideration level. [She sounded a bit uncertain on this point, but she must have been describing "re-recon." She was not around for re-recon before, so I can understand her haziness.]
  • De Soto is looking forward to a contractor providing software that will "pull" exhibits for ALJ hearings. [She is the proud owner of this plan. As I have said before, it will never work. Sit Ms. de Soto at a table. Give her a 500 page ALJ file and let her "pull" the exhibits by hand. Then ask her if she really believes a computer program can do this. Of course, she has never done this and has only a vague idea of what is involved, but she is about to spend several million dollars on the hopeless task of getting a computer to do this.]
  • She believes she can pilot autopulling of exhibits nationally in the next 18 months.
  • De Soto said that she has some limited ability to work employees overtime.
  • De Soto wants to encourage bench decisions.
  • De Soto wants to allow decision writes to use short form fully favorable decisions. [If she is talking about true "short form" fully favorable decisions --a simple form allowance with a two or three paragraph rationale that is not even sent to the claimant -- she is talking about something important, since that would really streamline the process. However, true "short form" fully favorables have not been used in so long (Can someone help me? 15-20 years?) that I am surprised that anyone even remembers them. I have trouble believing she actually meant what she seemed to be saying.]
  • She wants Social Security's web site to allow secure two way communication between attorneys and ALJs.
  • She would like for attorneys to be able to access their clients' files via the internet with appropriate password protection. [In my lifetime?]
  • The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is moving "full steam ahead" on a new ALJ register by the end of this calendar year. However, the tone of de Soto's voice expressed clear skepticism that this would happen. [OPM will get a chance next week to explain their delay in producing a new ALJ register when the House Social Security Subcommittee holds a hearing on the issue. Maybe that will get their attention.]
  • De Soto thinks holding hearings on "unpulled" files is appropriate to help out with the backlogs. [But, she said nothing about requiring that ALJs do this.]
  • The use of senior attorney decisions is under consideration. Although she could not speak for her "boss," Michael Astrue, "everyone views it favorably." [Was she recommending this before Democrats took control of Congress? Do not tell me that it does not matter who wins elections.]
  • The Appeals Council has an average 220 day backlog. She did not think this is a crisis. [So how come if you call the Appeals Council you get a recording telling you not to bother them with questions about the status of your case unless it has been at the Appeals Council for more than three years?]
  • She expects to see some initiatives regarding hearing backlogs within the next two weeks -- which would be by the end of next week. [Probably, the hearing scheduled for May 1 before the House Social Security Subcommittee is where these initiatives will be revealed.]
  • De Soto thinks that giving claimants a 75 day notice of ALJ hearings would be a good idea. This is part of the DSI experiment, but may go national even if DSI goes down the tubes.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I remember short-form favorable decisions--they were eliminated because of abuse of discretion by alj's who did not want to go through the bother of justifying and explaining their decisions and resulted in decisions that were not supportable, in a lot of cases.
There was one infamous alj in upstate ny who approved anyone who was illiterate and/or non-english speaking using short-form.