I strongly recommend that anyone interested in disability determination at Social Security read the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report "Disability Impairments on Cases Most Frequently Denied by Disability Determination Services and Subsequently Allowed by Administrative Law Judges." The tables in the report are striking. It is likely to be cited as support for all sorts of arguments for many years to come.
The only disappointment I have with this report are the following conclusions which, to my mind, are rather timid:
My recommendation after reading the report is that Social Security needs to concentrate upon the issue of Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) determination at DDS and, especially, to concentrate upon the RFC guidelines applied at the initial and reconsideration levels. Social Security's official position is that there are no RFC guidelines. This is bull. Sure, they may no longer put the RFC guidelines in writing but everyone knows they exist and are enforced by the quality assurance process. If you have to keep the rules you are following this secret, there has to be something wrong with the rules you are following.
The only disappointment I have with this report are the following conclusions which, to my mind, are rather timid:
1. Collect information related to claimant representation at the DDS l[Disability Determination Service] level to determine whether representation results in more allowances at the DDS level. Based on the results of that assessment, determine whether additional efforts are needed to ensure claimants are made aware of the availability of claimant representation at the DDS level.I can tell Social Security that focusing on attorney representation at DDS is not going to get them anywhere. I have been representing claimants at DDS for years. The main benefit of my representation is that my clients are not allowed to become discouraged and fail to file appeals. I have no illusion that I can do anything to influence the outcome at the initial or reconsideration level except in unusual cases. My prediction is that Social Security will collect statistics on the effects of representation at the initial and reconsideration levels and they will show that represented claimants have only marginally better success at DDS. That difference can mostly be explained by the fact that attorneys refuse cases they regard as unwinnable at any level. Social Security's response to the OIG report suggests they think much the same thing.
2. Consider conducting a targeted review of disability determinations made in the six States we identified as having higher than average DDS denial rates and hearing level allowance rates for the four impairments we analyzed.
3. Consider analyzing variances between the hearing offices and ALJs [Administrative Law Judge] with high and low allowance rates for the four impairments we analyzed to determine whether factors are present that support the variances.
My recommendation after reading the report is that Social Security needs to concentrate upon the issue of Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) determination at DDS and, especially, to concentrate upon the RFC guidelines applied at the initial and reconsideration levels. Social Security's official position is that there are no RFC guidelines. This is bull. Sure, they may no longer put the RFC guidelines in writing but everyone knows they exist and are enforced by the quality assurance process. If you have to keep the rules you are following this secret, there has to be something wrong with the rules you are following.
6 comments:
"I have been representing claimants at DDS for years. The main benefit of my representation is that my clients are not allowed to become discouraged and fail to file appeals."
Amen, Mr. Hall. Amen. I have been telling my clients for years that there is little to nothing we can do to change the outcome of their IA decision, and that their fate rests entirely in the hands of a poorly trained, overworked, and generally disinterested "examiner" who is not a doctor or a lawyer. Representation at the IA level is as much about hand-holding and therapy to the claimant as anything else.
"their fate rests entirely in the hands of a poorly trained, overworked, and generally disinterested "examiner" who is not a doctor or a lawyer."
If you believe this, why would you want Obamacare?
It's not about Obamacare. This sort of nonsense has been going on long before Obama even became a Senator. Let's not turn SSA's foibles into some sort of right-wing vs. left-wing political rhetoric, because that ignores the bigger issue: SSA is going to deny 70% of IA cases no matter which side of the aisle is in power, and they're going to do it with people who are not properly trained or motivated.
Absolutely correct response. But you won't stop trolls from trolling.
SSA is the Wizard of Trolls.
SSA puts out tons of reminders to decisionmakers at DDS about the rules and regulations regarding RFC and other issues. But they largely go ignored or are only partially applied. And SSA appears to be completely oblivious to how bad this problem really is, thanks to misleading statistics.
Post a Comment