The Lexington Herald-Leader is calling for the Kentucky Bar Association to take action against embattled attorney Eric Conn, arguing that the recent accusation that he colluded with a Social Security Administrative Law Judge is not the first time that Conn has been in trouble. He had already agreed to stop practicing before the Court of Veterans Appeals because of professional misconduct charge. Also, Conn was recently convicted of illegal campaign finance contributions.
What I don't understand is why Social Security hasn't already suspended Conn from representing Social Security claimants -- if there is the substantial evidence against Conn indicated by at the Senate hearing last week. There is a process to take away Conn's ability to represent Social Security claimants. It can be done in a few months. Social Security wouldn't have to prove bribery. Even if it the bribery happened, it probably won't be proven unless one of the parties decides to confess. The charge of manufacturing physician opinions would be enough to stop Conn from representing Social Security claimants -- if it can be proven. Charges don't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Has Social Security just been slow to act? Has the evidence of manufacturing physician opinions just come forward? Is the evidence not as strong as it was made to appear at the Senate hearing?
I think all the emails speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteIs what he did any different than when DDS tells the doctor the person has a light RFC and asks the doctor to sign it? If you look into the DDS notes which are not always exhibited, but usually in the case file tab, you see that DDS tells doctors what RFC they want - and I've never seen the outcome go against DDS.
ReplyDeleteWant to make sure we are talking about the same thing. In electronic cases, which section would those notes be in?
ReplyDeleteAs to the emails, though, I mean the emails from various ALJ's and others complaining that the ALJ was changing the docket.
I am glad someone brought that issue up. I don't see the case notes too often in most files, but when I have done hearings in Milwaukee for instance, many times those notations are present.
ReplyDeleteThe notes would say something to the effect of limited to light work,simple routine, occasional changes... and it will have the initials of the disability examiner. When looking at the DDS RFC's they have the same exact language and the signed forms are dated after the disability examiner notes.
When I have raised objections at the hearing, the ALJ's have a variety of answers--one common response is: "Well the doctors can always go in a different direction if they want."
In my ODAR, these notes are actually exhibited as Request for Medical Advice and Case Analysis, under the F exhibits. Here's an example from a current case I'm working:
ReplyDeleteRequest for Medical Advice: Please provide an assessment of the individual's current Residual Functional Capacity:
Then, there's a narrative summary of the evidence, and it concludes thusly: "I have assessed a light RFC. We would need less than sed to allow. If you agree, please sign RFC for this non-SDM. Thanks!"
The next exhibit is signed by the doctor, titled Case Analysis, and it simply says "eCAT form completed". The RFC contained in the eCAT form is - guess what? - a light RFC!
I see these in just about every case.
Sounds like DE's are doing a fine job. The doc's rubber stamp is expensive. Maybe more SDM is in order.
ReplyDeleteSen Coburn would call the SDM's the "trained professionals of Social Security."
ReplyDeleteBecause I object to those DDS shenanigans and have lost a few of those cases and the ALJ did not address my argument (even in the cases I have won) I have concluded that completing an RFC for a physician is sound legal practice. I mean, the physician can change it if he wants. Why do they get so upset when we play by their rules?
ReplyDeleteCan you please tell me what E-Cat is? I see "see report in E-Cat" sometimes. Is is rep viewable?
ReplyDeleteWhat those above are describing at the DDS is very different than what Mr. Conn did. The DEs are drafting a proposed RFC to be reviewed by the doctor. The doctor has the ability to change it and they often do.
ReplyDeleteWhat Conn did was use the SAME rfc for all the clients and the same doctor was signing it, having never been told that he could change his mind. Dr. Adkins testified before the subcommittee that he thought the form he was signing was for internal use only and not even being sent anywhere and Conn just need his signature on it.
Please, please, please, don't try to paint DDS and Conn unethical scheme with the same brush.
Conn, like many (certainly not all) SS disability lawyers, is a crook who uses phony treating physician reports/assessments to win cases.
ReplyDeleteODAR ALJs are lazy, work (play) at home old geezers who pay cases (regardless of merit) to make "numbers."
The taxpayer, of course, is the one who takes a beating.
@ 3:35 PM, glad to see you came out from under your bridge.
ReplyDelete3:52, I'm just waiting for 3:35 to bring up the "$100k feds" rant again. Kind of miss it.
ReplyDelete"What I don't understand is why Social Security hasn't already suspended Conn from representing Social Security claimants"
ReplyDeleteBecause upper management are cowards (even if Conn loses his bar license, SSA will probably still allow him to practice as a non-attorney practitioner) and because his behavior benefits the goal set up by Astrue and others to reduce the backlog as quickly as possible -- there is no faster way to reduce the case load than to pay a bunch of claimants.
Anonymous 2:16, I'll agree that the DDS docs have the authority to change the proposed RFCs but I literally have never seen it happen. What's more common is to see the examiners go out of their way to deny a claim regardless of what any of the docs say. I've seen too many cases where a consultative examiner has made findings that, if accepted, would fit the claimant under a grid rule, and the examiner dismisses the finding as simply a "snapshot" based on a "one-time exam". Try to use the same argument at an ALJ hearing and see how far you get.
ReplyDeleteIt's all a game, and the claimant is outnumbered. In some ways I would welcome having agency attorneys; at least I would get the satisfaction of seeing one of them make these arguments in person.
to the question above as to what is eCAT, it stands for "Electronic Case Analysis Tool". It's the process of working through a case and it results in a 7 or so page exhibit titled Disability Determination Explanation, usually found at Exhibit 2A. The RFC findings are contained within these, along with a summary of the evidence.
How often does SSA actually suspend attorneys from practicing in front of them? I believe the statistics are next to never. I think you have to shoot a claimant AND an ALJ, on the record, on multiple occasions or something to that affect.
ReplyDeleteAs of September 26, 2013, there are 216 sanctioned representatives [although several are listed under multiple names/aliases] (almost all disqualified from being representatives), with the list going back to 1982.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere around an average of 7 a year and I believe I read somewhere that probably only 2 or 3 a year are attorneys, the rest are non-attorney reps because I'm sure they are easier targets for SSA. So, do you REALLY think that they are even TRYING to monitor these guys? REALLY?
ReplyDeleteI would hate to see what the attorneys did who actually DID get suspended. I bet that would be an interesting read!
ReplyDelete