The user fee cap will be $89 in 2014. This is the limit on the amount that Social Security can charge attorneys and some others for withholding their fee from and the past due benefits of clients that have represented before the Social Security Administration. It's the amount charged in most cases. It's a simple one-quarter computation. By contrast, payroll companies charge $.80 to $2.00 to perform the far more complicated calculations needed to issue a payroll check.
If you don't like the fee...don't ask SSA to withhold your payment. Collect it directly from the claimant, who is after all your client, and whose truthfulness you have vouched for.
ReplyDeleteCry me a river. The trade off when this began was that you got up to $6,000.00 instead of the maximum of $5,200.00. Didn't bark too much then did you???
ReplyDelete@9:28: no problem, release the entire award to the attorney's iolta, as is done in pretty much every other practice area.
ReplyDelete@12:47
ReplyDeletewomp womp
You forgot that SSA reps aren't all attorneys. Thanks for playing, though.
"Cry me a river. The trade off when this began was that you got up to $6,000.00 instead of the maximum of $5,200.00"
ReplyDeleteYeah it was I think supposed to be a 6.2 percent processing fee. So they got the fee agreement limit increased $800 and the processing fee was capped at that time at $75.
Not to mention that SSA has a special number for Reps to call a Call Center, when the rest of the peon public has to stay on hold on the regular 800 number.
SSDI is the attorneys program.
@2:19
ReplyDeleteyou don't know the half of it (maybe you do). Take a gander at that Senate report re: Conn and Daugherty and see just how much the agency bends over backward for reps.
Then just look inside any ODAR office. I am an attorney, and it is indescribably maddening to see how much crap we let reps get away with. The worst is the attorney reps who ask for postponements because of THEIR timing issues. When I practiced in real court land, it was understood and enforced that an attorney NEVER was the basis for delaying his client's day in court. Hence secured leave and similar practices.
This practice is really funny because it's invariably the same reps who bitch and moan on the record and everywhere else about how long the process is, how badly their client is doing because of the wait (these types send soooo many dire need requests...), etc. How do you sleep knowing that your actions have delayed justice and financial security for your client?
@2:04 - get rid of non attorney reps, problem solved.
ReplyDelete@2:27, the best rep in the world can't be in two places at the same time. Invariably, postponement requests in our office are due to ODAR's scheduling a case for when the attorney is already scheduled elsewhere. Another common issue: claimant's hospitalization/medical treatment makes them unable to attend. Neither are fraudulent or irresponsible.
Here in South Carolina we have an order of precidence as to what get bumped. Unfortunatly, ALJ hearings are not on the list anywhere.
ReplyDeleteSo $85.00 isn't that much of a hit from $6,000. But why is it so much higher than, say, the payroll services mentioned?
Here's a kicker - what about when the payment center or DO screws up and payment is delayed for several months?
Look, I hate processing attorney fees in the DO. Bill the claimants and keep me out of it!!!
DeleteGiven that wages and benefits of federal government employees far exceed wages and benefits in the private sector, it's easy to see how the private sector payroll company can charge much less for a similar transaction.
ReplyDeleteEvery government agency needs to have its equivalent of the $200 screwdriver. For SSA, its an $89 fee to write and send a check.
ReplyDeleteThe solution is for the government to charge whatever the market will bear. Will we have enough representatives willing to do the job if this fee was $100? How about $200? How about $300? Or more? Keep adjusting this up until there is a significant lack of representatives. Or, give representatives the option to collect all their payment for services due from their client and not charge any fee since the government does not have that workload for such cases. After all, the idea of government fees and taxes being devoted and set aside to pay for the specific needs of the programs for which they were collected was disconnected decades ago.
ReplyDelete@8:36 - I'm not sure what you've been reading or hearing, but you're wrong. I'm a typical example. I'm an attorney/decision writer for ODAR. Indeed, my health benefits are decent, though not exactly overwhelming--nor are they cheap. But my salary, six years out of law school, is about half--literally, about 50%--of what numerous classmates of mine earned in the private sector on day one (six years ago). But perhaps using an attorney as an example comes across as unrepresentative of the whole. Most of my co-workers in this office are non-attorneys, and except for the middle-aged-plus "lifers" who make decent incomes based purely on sticking around for several decades, these folks are not earning more than my friends in the private sector. They're mostly living paycheck-to-paycheck, driving modest cars, wearing average clothing, living in modest homes or apartments, and trying to figure out how handle the ever-increasing expenses their children incur. Many of them are single parents, and good ones, at that. The only people making truly large salaries (e.g., $90k or more) are the highest-ranking people in the office, who make up a very small minority of the employees here. And you're implication that the disparity in payment processing fees is in some way proportionate to disparities in income is not merely insulting, but flatly ignorant. I think the rather obvious deduction that SSA charges a much higher processing fee simply "because they can" makes a lot more sense, whether their doing so is fair/justifiable or not.
ReplyDelete(Before someone else points out the error, I'll call myself out on using "you're" instead of "your" in my 8:52 comment.)
ReplyDeleteCharles, I cannot believe that you compared what SSA has to do for representatives to someone/some payroll service cutting a payroll check. If all that had to be done was "write a check" maybe it wouldn't be a big deal, but that is NOT what is involved. There are the costs to develop software for things like reps getting online access to their client's records, programming the computers to calculate the fees, writing the procedures in POMS and HALLEX, staffing the call lines for reps - because you all cannot wait for someone to answer your calls like the public must do. And if I had a nickel for every time I had to explain the rules to your staffs, I could have retired years ago. After all, they are the ones that call then ask us to explain why we cannot pay you today - even though the claimant hasn't been paid. "What does that have to do with it?, they ask. And then there are the ones that send multiple copies of fee orders in - just in case we don't have it. Of course, every time they do that, it delays processing while someone looks at the case to be sure there isn't a problem. You also have to allow for the time to explain to the rep and/or his/her staff why we are not paying the claim as a fee agreement. After all - the rep is the one that decided to use a 2-tier agreement but now says, "Oh, forget about that and just pay me the $6,000." or even better, the ones that say, "Just go ahead and pay me the $6,000.00and I will file a fee petition for the balance of the 25%" Any idea how much time that takes?
ReplyDelete