 |
| Sue Farrar |
Republican members of Congress equate Social Security overpayments with fraud. When I see Social Security overpayments they're mostly like the case of Sue Farrar, a woman whose $31,000 overpayment was entirely due to a mistake the agency made. Ms. Farrar was then faced with dealing with an agency which is increasingly becoming incommunicado, an agency which seems determined to leave her with no income. She only gets something like relief after the intervention of the news media. There is nothing unusual about Ms. Farrar's case. It happens every day all across the country with one exception. Normally, there is no media intervention.
21 comments:
not sure what the issue is, she has the money and she essentially got an interest free loan.
She received money she was not entitled to.
exactly. yes, SSA inadvertantly gave her $30,000 she wasn't entitled to. She has the means to pay it back.
If you goto the bank, and it mistakenly gives you $30,000, not only do you have to pay it back immediately, you might go to jail if you spend it.
Is this fraud? no. but she is not destitute, and has the ability and means to pay the OP back in full
Seems to me, she still could have filed an appeal for a hearing. Interesting CTH didn't comment on her inability to find a lawyer to help her. Oh wait, there isn't any money in helping with overpayments. Other than being difficult to contact the Agency initially, it souns like this overpayment went through the system the way it is suppose to. Just because a person doesn't like the decision made, doesn't mean they received poor service. I am sorry that she received the incorrect amount, and whatever caused that error needs to be fixed, but in the long run the proper amount was paid.
"She told me how much that was worth but asked me not to reveal that in this story. Suffice it to say that six figures in the low range is accurate".
Strange,funny statement.
Having read the story, a few things stick out in my mind: SSA screwed up, she should pay them back, but to apparently leave her with no benefits for two years is grossly unjust. Even though this one has apparently a suitable conclusion, it shouldn't require a 1,000 word newspaper story to do it.
A sweet old lady just ripping off the system. Keep moving, nothing to see here. She has money in the low 6 figure amount?? Wow, do I feel sorry for her. I am sure our claimant's can all identify with her. Most of them have never seen 6 figures in their lives..
What happened to the 36 month repayment standard? It seems she could afford 833/mo for 36 months. Something is missing from the story and it relates to her ability and/or willingness to repay. She seems to have the total amount of overpayment still on hand. Pity the buggers who don't have the media to pick up their stories and run with them. SSA is in a shambles.
The Agency is technology obsessed, but cannot seem to figure out how to flag disability cases when earnings over the SGA levels start rolling in - hence overpayments for years go ignored...until who know what happens "for some unknown reason" benefits were not ceased was the latest reason the Agency did not stop benefits...and most people do not have the money to pay back benefits and many are intellectually and/or mentally challenged with no understanding of complex rules... so maybe Ms. Farrar was faced with those problems... but she just may be the exception rather than the rule. The bottom line is an agency that cannot seem to take timely action...on many things.
Maybe what the agency did makes sense after all. SSA is just showing patience and hoping the bad press goes away. Ms. Farrar's future heirs (and executor) should read POMS GN 02205.001b, a provision SSA knows:
B. Liability of the estate
When an overpaid person (e.g., beneficiary or representative payee) dies, the person's estate becomes liable for any remaining overpayment balance. If the executor closes the estate, the beneficiaries of the estate are liable to the extent of the proceeds of the estate (or property attributable to such proceeds) that are in his or her possession when notified of the overpayment.
The attorney that handled her divorce messed up by not being aware of the ten year rule. (No mention of why that was missed in the article)
Supposedly, while a matter is pending before an ALJ on a waiver request, collection action is deferred. Not clear why that didn't happen.
At no time did she make an offer of settlement that could have lead to a reasonable payment plan. Yes, there is the 36 month guideline (not rule) but smaller arrangements are frequently made.
And under SS rules, there should not have been a waiver. She was without fault but there is not a sufficient hardship for her to pay.
And many lawyers do take OP cases, but the charge is on an hourly rate basis that needs to be approved by the SSA and where, as here, there is little likelihood of success in waiving the entire payment, that fee is just a waist of the client's money which I would tell her at the outset while explaining the compromise settlement and deferral of collection during appeal.
I am so sick of hearing how these cases amount to "an interest free loan" that is Agency propaganda. An "interest free loan" is only such when you know that you only have the funds temporarily and must eventually pay them back, so that you can plan. Clearly that is not the case here. These over-payment demands are extremely disruptive to someone' careful financial planning, which brings me to my second point. I cannot wait for some these automaton CRs to retire and realize how hard it is to live when you are old and on a limited income. I know here out West things are very tough. I think that woman was from the South and I am sure things are not much better out there. Please stop drinking the Koolaid. When the Agency screws up, we should eat the loss. Maybe that would lead to more efficiency and more employees actually doing their job correctly. Instead SSA employees mess things up with impunity and then the poor claimant's get zapped out of left field. SSA should be ashamed of the way some of their employees treat the claimants. As an old timer, I find it disgusting. The overpayment claimants should try to find a free law school clinic to help them with their overpayments.
re: Anonymous 7:19am
On overpayment cases, collection is only stayed through the personal conference decision. Once a personal conference denial is issued, the overpayment returns to collection and remains in collection status even if a hearing is requested.
If the ALJ approves the waiver, the overpayment balance thus far collected is refunded to the claimant.
RE 5:22
Can employees be better trained to prevent errors? Yes. Can employees deal with overpaid claimants with more empathy? Of course.
Recovery of overpaid funds is a matter of law. If you don't like it, work to change the law.
The waiver provisions are humane and fair. Generally speaking overpayments are waived if the individual is without fault AND repayment would cause undue hardship or be unfair for some other reason.
This woman was found to be without fault. However, she does seem to have the ability to repay. Why shouldn't she?
7:31 You really need to look at the actual regulations. The claimant's accustomed life style is also taken into consideration. Further, many, many CRs do not follow the regs even in the basic manner. Would love to continue this discussion but I have to run. 5:22
The statement "when the agency screws up, we should eat the loss" is just plain ridiculous."
then don't screw up. The op regs appear to be at least partially based on the principals of equity. My "eat the loss" comment refers to a "clean hands" argument.
you must not be legally trained--unclean hands means bad faith, which means intentional or very reckless behavior. An unintential miscalculation or some similar action does not destroy SSA's clean hands and good faith, which does destroy your notion of an equity argument here.
I repeat, ridiculous.
when you have repeated wanton disregard for due diligence, you have the beginnings of av"clean hands" claim. I may even smell a class action here. I know, you find this "ridiculous".
again, your statements belie the legal knowledge you try to show using legal terms.
Look up the FRCP and other Federal Law regarding class actions against Federal Administrative Agencies and you'll quickly see that it's not an impending class action you smell, but rather the faint aroma of not knowing the first thing you're talking about seeping from the back end of your body ;)
are you trying to say that there has never been a class action against a federal agency? I find that fascinating. I also find it very telling that you are engaging in personal attack of sorts. Reasonable minds can disagree reasonably. Further, even if a theory of a case is novel, that is how the law gets changed. Any lawyer worth his pay knows that.
Post a Comment