The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has just held in Clark v. Astrue that Social Security misinterpreted the statutory provision prohibiting payment of benefits to "fugitive felons." This opinion concerns claimants with alleged probation and parole violations. This is a class action case that will affect a large number of people.
Social Security had earlier settled the case of Martinez v. Astrue which involved a different fugitive felon issue.
The underlying problem is that Social Security adopted ridiculously overbroad interpretations of the fugitive felon provisions enacted by Congress. Congress had in mind murders and rapists. The reality was that the vast majority of those caught up by the fugitive felon provisions, as interpreted by Social Security, had committed, at most, relatively minor crimes. Many had no idea that anyone considered them a fugitive. Some had been convicted of nothing. The records that Social Security was using to declare claimants fugitives were rife with errors. I can give an example that is not directly on point but close enough to give an idea of the problems with these records. After one of my clients was approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, we were informed that no benefits would be paid since my client was in prison in New Mexico. This made no sense since she was living in North Carolina. My client's response was one which makes New Mexicans cringe: "What are they talking about? I've never been to Mexico!" When I contacted the New Mexico prison authorities, they told me that they had never had a prisoner with my client's name or Social Security number.
Social Security had earlier settled the case of Martinez v. Astrue which involved a different fugitive felon issue.
The underlying problem is that Social Security adopted ridiculously overbroad interpretations of the fugitive felon provisions enacted by Congress. Congress had in mind murders and rapists. The reality was that the vast majority of those caught up by the fugitive felon provisions, as interpreted by Social Security, had committed, at most, relatively minor crimes. Many had no idea that anyone considered them a fugitive. Some had been convicted of nothing. The records that Social Security was using to declare claimants fugitives were rife with errors. I can give an example that is not directly on point but close enough to give an idea of the problems with these records. After one of my clients was approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, we were informed that no benefits would be paid since my client was in prison in New Mexico. This made no sense since she was living in North Carolina. My client's response was one which makes New Mexicans cringe: "What are they talking about? I've never been to Mexico!" When I contacted the New Mexico prison authorities, they told me that they had never had a prisoner with my client's name or Social Security number.
2 comments:
This decision wasn't about the fugitive felon provision but the parole- or probation-violator provision.
As an SSA employee, I think we won - this is a real pain to try to administer (not to mention the suffering it causes the innocent). I hope we "win" them all!
Post a Comment