Mr. Smith is found to have lung cancer. He has part of a lung removed and has radiation and chemotherapy. Soon after the cancer was discovered, Mr. Smith applies for Social Security disability benefits. The claim is approved. By seven months after he stopped work, Mr. Smith is over the surgery and the chemotherapy and radiation therapy, Mr. Smith is feeling better. He's not sure that he'll be able to work but he wants to give it a try. He returns to his old job. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith finds that he can't handle his old job. He's just too short of breath and he gets tired out too quickly. He stops after two months. Mr. Smith informs Social Security of his attempt to return to work and its unsuccessful outcome. They do nothing. His checks continue. What should have happened?
- Social Security did the right thing. Mr. Smith should not be punished for his brief, unsuccessful attempt to return to work.
- Social Security should have said that Mr. Smith was ineligible for Social Security disability benefits until his attempt to return to work ended and declared him overpaid for the months of benefits paid before that date.
- Social Security should have ended Mr. Smith's benefits permanently and declared him overpaid for any benefits he received.
If you chose 1, that Mr. Smith should not be punished for his unsuccessful work attempt, you chose the correct answer under current law. If you chose 3, that Mr. Smith should be made permanently ineligible for disability benefits because he made an unsuccessful attempt to return to work, you made the same choice that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made in producing a report saying that Social Security made $1.3 billion in overpayments to Social Security disability claimants. If you chose either 1 or 2, you believe that the GAO report is misleading.
By the way, this sort of unsuccessful attempt to return to work is common. I'll guess that at least 10% of claimants do it, perhaps as many as 25%.
By the way, this sort of unsuccessful attempt to return to work is common. I'll guess that at least 10% of claimants do it, perhaps as many as 25%.
But, forget what answer is correct under current law and which answer the GAO chose. Which answer makes most sense to you as a public policy matter?
7 comments:
None of the above. The first thing that should happen is PFS testing to determine the actual extent of respiratory deficit. It's possible that from that information a determination could be made that the impairment did not meet the duration requirement. It's also possible that a medical examination would reveal whether the lung removal was the cause of subsequent respiratory problems, or whether some other (new) impairment was the culprit, in which case the duration requirement would still be implicated.
This scenario needs to be revised. The poll question is irrelevant because he has 9 months of Trial Work Period (TWP). In the scenario above, he only used 2 months of his TWP, and he has 7 more TWP months if he decides to return to work with substantial earnings.
Pretty sure that working at SGA within 12 months of AOD before a final determination is made is NOT protected by TWP.
Anon 12:14 is right about the TWP.
A disability is a severe impairment that lasts (OR IS EXPECTED) to last 1 year in duration. At the time, it was EXPECTED to last 12 months. When the chemo apparently worked, the SSA should have stopped benefits. Overpayment is just nonsense.
First anon at 12:14 in the example a final determination had been made prior to his attempted rtw so the twp would apply. Second claimants who had short or long term disability ( the first 6 months of which appear as FICA wages), sick pay, vacation pay, severance pay, termination pay, bonuses paid after onset, insurance renewal pay earned, unsuccessful work attempts and tril work period all would appear as "working" per this GAO study when in fact their earnings would not be SGA and these would be false alerts.
This GAO study is a very misleading headline and when you boil it down there wouldn't be many overpayments as a result if this study. As Charles says this study is ignorant of SS's rules.
Apparently none of you actually read the GAO report, because in the report, it is noted that SSA predicted an even higher percentage of overpayments based on its internal analysis.
TWP doesn't matter much if his impairment does not, ultimately, meet the durational requirement or one of its exceptions (looks like Mr. Smith is not going to die, so his only hope would be if a subsequent decisionmaker determines/adjudicates that his lung impairment is expected to last at the level it is nine months after onset for at least another three months).
Post a Comment