I'm reposting this since no one was able to give an answer to my questions -- the closest was an answer that referred to the agency's ability to impose sanctions against those who make false or misleading statements, which has nothing to do with a failure to submit evidence.
Social Security is publishing new regulations in the Federal Register on the submission of evidence tomorrow. You can read them today.Some Questions: What's the enforcement mechanism for these requirements? If there's no enforcement mechanism, is this anything more than precatory language? As vague as these regulations are, even if there is an enforcement mechanism, is it practical to enforce them? How can you punish someone for failing to live up to a standard that you can't define in a meaningful way? Is the lack of enforceability the reason that Social Security insisted on pressing ahead with regulations that were universally condemned for vagueness and overreaching? Why worry about what these regulations say if you have no intention of trying to enforce them?
4 comments:
I think it's more of a selective enforcement policy. If you get on SSA's bad side, they will put their resources to work to find something to use against you, and they you are done. Ruffle too many feathers? Sanctions time, you didn't disclose that the neighbor lady saw the claimant get the mail 204 days prior to the hearing.
It gives the ability to find that a claimant was not without fault in receiving an overpayment if they did not disclose their income or work activity. It gives a way to not strictly apply the MIRS standard if they only provide selected medical records. For example, a statement from a doctor that they were on dialysis for CRD and not that of a month or so later that it was an acute episode after all and they were no longer on dialysis.
The civil monetary penalty authorized by 42 USC 1320a-8 applies not just to affirmative statements that are false and misleading but also to omissions and, precisely on point for this discussion, any "withhold[ing of] disclosure of" a material fact.
They will probably enforce through representative misconduct actions. OGC will prosecute, and an SSA ALJ will decide whether the representative lived up to the "standard" set forth in the regulation. The obvious purpose is to prevent reps from withholding unfavorable capacity evaluations and records.
Post a Comment