Social Security has issued updated numbers on payments of fees
to attorneys and some others for representing Social Security
claimants. These fees are withheld and paid by Social Security but come
out of the back benefits of the claimants involved. The attorneys and
others who have their fees withheld pay a user fee for this privilege. Since these fees are usually
paid at the same time that the claimant is paid, these numbers show how
quickly or slowly Social Security is able to get claimants paid after a
favorable determination on their claims.
| Month/Year | Volume | Amount |
|---|---|---|
Jan-13
|
32,663
|
$96,690,734.65
|
Feb-13
|
35,508
|
$102,242,540.93
|
Mar-13
|
45,189
|
$130,690,281.94
|
Apr-13
|
33,178
|
$92,566,832.32
|
May-13
|
42,841
|
$122,781,135.03
|
June-13
|
33,954
|
$97,627,420.68
|
4 comments:
I would surmise the summer months would normally reflect a decline due to vacation schedules for staff.
And don't forget the declining number of employees. Also, the quicker decisions by ALJs, Senior Attorneys, etc., mean lower fees - don't I remember someone complaining about that? (Or maybe that was on the ALJ Discussion list.) In addition, the way so many of the large shops are starting with initial claims means lower fees because the ones allowed at the initial or recon level don't usually yield $6000 fees. Also, the many folks starting to do CDIs usually don't get paid by SSA - they have to collect from the claimant since the claimant's usually ask for payment continuation - if it even got as far as a cessation. Too many reps are starting to convince claimants that they need to start representing them as soon as SSA says they are starting to do a CDR. Talk about scams - many of these cases are screened out without ever going to the DDS. AS soon as the claimant with diabetes tells the FO that they have had an amputation since they were allowed, the CDR goes away.
The numbers you keep posting are only title II fees. They don't include title XVI fees nor amounts paid by third party entities such as UNUM and other insurers. Don't worry - none of you are starving - you get your 25% in one way or another. Fee contracts that require the claimant to put 25% of each check into an escrow account when all that happened is that the FO sent a letter asking the claimant to contact them to start a CDI should be banned. Sending letters telling \claimants that SSA will take them off the rolls as soon as they mention a CDI is dishonest. Why don't you all police your own ranks and stop some of these egregious practices?
3:45 PM: It is obvious that you are a wage-earner who has no concept of running a business with overhead to pay. At the opulent rates SSDI/SSI beneficiaries are paid, it takes time to build an escrow fund sufficient to pay the eventual fees--whether contingent or hourly. I'm thinking of no longer doing cessations cases because of the difficulty of collecting anything close to what my office expenses run. That's what y'all at SSA want, isn't it?
ITT:
Attorneys practicing in the area of law with the most reliable and sure thing collection of payment there is whining about collecting.
Post a Comment