The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has scheduled a hearing for June 27 at 9:30 a.m. on Oversight of Rising Social Security Disability Claims and the Role of Administrative Law Judges. This is supposed to be the first of a series of hearings on this subject. In advance of the hearing, there is an Associated Press piece saying that Social Security's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are approving claims at "strikingly high rates." There is also mention of "management problems" which have led to "misspending." The article quotes Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Energy, Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements as saying "This is not one or two judges out there just going rogue and saying
they are going to approve a lot of cases. This is a very, very high rate" of
approving claims.
I suppose this particular House Committee does some good but under both Democrats and Republicans, it has had a reputation for conducting partisan witch hunts when the White House has been in the hands of the opposite party.
By the way, didn't Social Security's ALJs as a group receive an official award from the American Bar Association back in the early 1990s for demonstrating courage in resisting outside pressure?
10 comments:
This is going to be a fun hearing, because DC Sklar is going to be put in the hotseat.
ALJ pay rate is lowest in a decades. But hey, don't let that stop a good witch hunt
Still trying to figure out what the "acceptable" rate is and who gets to set it. If any of the people on the committee can quote the definition of SSA Disability or know what a listing is.
Instead of change for the better, we will get a knee jerk reaction, perhaps even a well meaning one, but in the end it is something the sick and injured will be stuck with for years.
I wish I would have had the good sense to be born rich!
The ALJ pay rate is only lower because you have senior attorneys paying so many cases beforehand.
If anything, it appears to me that there is a sharp rise in approvals at the initial levels. I'm seeing claimant's win intially that would almost certainly would end up at the hearing level 4 years ago.
Can anyone elaborate why the Social Security bar shot themselves in the foot lobbying to cut down on these backlogs?
To 9:40 -
Take a look at the actual statistics. The Sr. Atty. has not had a massive impact on overall pay vs. deny rates. In any case, Sr. Atty's have mostly been writing ALJ decisions, rather than screening and issuing their own decisions since July 2012. Only the Virtual Screening Unit people and a handful of others have continued to screen. I really doubt that it is merely a coincidence that ODAR's backlog has been climbing since July 2012.
Anyone else seeing Fully Favorable and On the Record approvals being pulled by AC for review?
From a response to an AC sua-sponte review: When victorious but anxious claimants used to ask us about what it means that the Appeals Council could review the favorable decision within 60 days, we used to assure them it’s about as likely as them getting struck by lightning. Now, as mine is a very small shop and two of my wins have recently been “struck,” I have begun to tell my clients (whether we’re walking out of the hearing room or have just received the favorable decision) to hold their breath until the money’s in the bank, as I should have been telling them all along. This new trend dampens one of the only warm and fuzzy moments this practice offers, and dims, or at least eclipses, the one bright spot for successful claimants.
Own-motion reviews like this one have made me wince instead of rejoice when a judge declares his or her intention to issue a fully favorable bench decision, although I have not yet objected, since that would only leave a puzzled judge and a more bewildered claimant. I do not yet discern any pattern suggesting that bench decisions are lightning-rods.
With the regulatory changes making claimants choose between filing requests for AC review and new applications, and all the technological and budgetary improvements aimed at reducing the backlogs that have hit their mark, I imagine the Division of Quality may rear its dreaded, if not ugly, head more often than any of us have experienced in our lifetime. But having worked with the federal government, I know we will all carry on, in the public and private sector alike.
On that wistful, but I know irrelevant, note, I turn to the case of
In response to the comment about the Social Security bar advocating for the backlog to drop, it was the right thing to do when it used to take 20-24 months to get a hearing. We saw frequent client suicides, deaths and foreclosures/evictions. We'd lose track of other clients who just assumed their claim disappeared. And it was always a difficult conversation to explain to a client after a request for hearing filing that they now had to wait 2 yrs to see a Judge. However, when the backlog shank to 3-5 months to get a hearing, every SSD attorney I know saw their practice revenue take a drastic hit. We'd have cases get denied by the ALJ for durational requirements because it was heard so quickly. Now that backlogs have grown again closer to a year, fees have crept back up. But ALJ pay rates have also dramatically dropped. You just have to adapt...
We've been told (not too recently but not that long ago) the AC now (I guess it didn't used to) pulls a certain percentage of all decisions for review--not just UFs and PFs, not just cases that had a hearing.
I guess the AC got sick of all the one paragraph rationale FF cases from offices' "fast" paralegals or those similarly short and insufficient FFs pumped out by writers during overtime hours.
Post a Comment