McPaper is running an editorial about Social Security's disability programs. As is generally the case with USA Today editorials, it's hard to say exactly what the point of the editorial is. I suppose that it says that there is something terribly wrong with the disability programs and something must be done to make it harder to get on Social Security disability benefits but it really does not identify what that something is.
The editorial repeats the canard that attorneys delay Social Security disability claims. It's simple. I make money by closing files, not by keeping them open. Extra fees from keeping a file open longer are unlikely to make up for the extra costs of keeping the file open longer. Not only is delaying benefits to a client unethical; it makes no business sense. Are there attorneys who end up delaying their clients ultimate success? Sure, but it's not because they're trying to increases their fees. It's because they're incompetent. There are incompetents in any line of work.
Chuck Martin, the President of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR), contributed an opposing piece.
By the way, who buys USA Today? Does anyone actually subscribe to it? I never read it except when I'm staying at a hotel that gives it to me for free. It's just so bland.
9 comments:
I completely agree that the only way to make money is by closing files and doing so as quickly as you can. I must disagree, however, with your suggestion that attorneys who delay claims only do so due to incompetence. I know of firms that purposefully delay filing appeals until the last possible day just to increase the possible retro benefits.
The biggest source of delay in getting a case ready for a hearing is obtaining all the necessary medical records. Attorneys, at least in my area of the country, will often not make any attempt to obtain records until they think it is close to time for a hearing to be scheduled or until the hearing has actually been scheduled; this is made worse by Agency practice of moving cases into the status for ready to schedule and then hoping by the time the hearing arrives that the file will be up-to-date.
"and a few judges deny virtually all the cases they hear, making them the equivalent of Simon Legree". There, fixed it.
And why risk business to other reps by delay?
One in the hand is worth more than two in the bush. Hello? I have bills to pay NOW not later. We are a business. Idiots.
Re: USA Today. I usually also only read if it is free. I have bought o1 or 2 at rest stops to get the crossword puzzle while my wife drives.
I bought one once, but ever since, I pick them up free in airports. There's almost no substance there--nor is there any intention to provide substance, I don't believe. USA Today is entertainment, pure and simple. Why they even bother with an OP-ED page, I do not know. Guess they feel obligated to provide one, since they appear to be a newspaper. They're really extended funnies.
The bottom line is quite simple. Does anyone in their right mind think that more than 6 out of every 10 people who walk in to a hearing room, (and in some courtrooms more than 9/10) are completely unable to work????
The average rate needs to get down to 30%. Changing a broken system that creates a huge incentive to pay cases would be step one. Updating the regs to make it harder to grid would be step two.
After reading the USA Today editorial, I agree with both substantive approaches:
"Beyond these get-tough approaches, some outside experts favor financial incentives for companies to retain minimally disabled people on their payrolls. Another reasonable idea is to create a category of disability that must be renewed after a few years to cover people with conditions that might improve." If companies had some incentive to keep employees instead of laying them off, that helps the employer, the employee, and the economy. If younger people with serious medical problems which were expected to get better were awarded benefits for, say, two years, then they would get help when they needed it. After two years, they could prove disability all over again -- or better yet, hopefully would be back at work.
Post a Comment