A class action lawsuit has been brought against the Social Security Administration over the termination of benefits which had been going to approximately 900 firmer clients of Eric Conn.
Meanwhile the Lexington Herald-Leader has run an editorial criticizing Social Security for cutting off these benefits but not prosecuting Conn. It's not just me who finds it peculiar that the evidence exists to justify summarily cutting 900 people off benefits but the evidence doesn't exist to suspend Conn from practicing before Social Security, a civil matter which would only require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, much less to bring criminal charges against him. Social Security can yell "It's fraud! It's fraud!" all they want but this doesn't make sense.
12 comments:
I'm sure they get their marching orders from the top (we all have bosses), but I hope the attorneys at OGC/OIG feel really badly about how toothless their offices are in some big ways. I'm with you, Charles, it is inexcusable SSA hasn't suspended Conn from appearing before it. I was somewhat sympathetic to the argument I saw floated somewhere (not sure if it was even from SSA) that perhaps DOJ or another LE agency asked SSA to hold off while it did some investigation/charging of its own, even though I couldn't really see how SSA doing its minor civil action of disqualification would jeopardize any criminal matter. But the more time that passes with no indication anyone is still looking into Conn hard, let alone brining charges, the more that possible reason for SSA's inaction becomes less tenable. Coupled with SSA's long history of only disqualifying folks who were already disbarred and/or convicted, I'm going to use Occam's Razor and say SSA is impotent rather than hindered by an outside force. Sad.
Is Charles really saying that he also finds it inexcusable that Mr. Conn has not been suspended? I did not get that from his post.
I don't think Charles is saying that. I think he's saying that if there's enough evidence to cut off benefits to these people, then there should be enough to suspend Conn. The fact that the latter has not been done suggests that there isn't enough evidence to cut off benefits. That requires no position on what should have been (or should be) done with Conn.
From the Class action - 65 YEAR OLD Beneficiary with stage 4 cancer, which has metastasized to her lymph nodes, prognosis is poor, with approximately a five percent chance of surviving her cancerous condition... prescribed approximately 22 medications, the monthly out-of-pocket exceeds $600.00. She had 10 days to submit to AC but fax number not working. The other Plaintiff 51 was diagnosed with colon cancer after he began receiving his benefits. He had a portion of his colon removed, and has also been diagnosed with a tumor in his right lung.
Who screened these cases, Senator Coburn's staff?
This is ugly and will get uglier. This is more than stupidity by the agency - it is the result the ‘we don’t care’ attitudes allowed the outlier ALJ denial purge, AC charades and the other members of the agency who disregarded the regulations.
Only SSA could have dreamed up a scenario wherein they come off looking worse than the alleged representative.
It is a race to the bottom to see who is convicted of breaking the law first. And, I bet it ends up costing the agency more than simple due process would have. Maybe even more than 22 million in fees has.
The complaint sheds light on what the notices actually say. There were apparently 2 notices. One simply suspending benefits. The other is a "Notice of Appeals Council Action," giving the claimant 10 days to submit new evidence, after which the case would be remanded for a new hearing. In neither case is any opportunity to continue benefits afforded, presumably no matter what evidence is submitted to the A/C. And as another poster mentioned, the fact that one of these notices was sent to a 65 year old tells us that there was zero screening of whether the alleged fraudulent evidence was actually material to the approval of disability benefits.
Whatever one thinks of Conn (and from all evidence he is an unmitigated sleaze) SSA is just making %&^%$ up as to their alleged authority to suspend benefits. I hope they end up paying some hefty attorney fees to class counsel. From an administrative law standpoint, this is outrageous.
@2:24: Let's hope they sort this nonsense before the lawsuits. Time=$. We all will pay.
They should keep those already on. Then, they should have some sort of expedited continuing disability review (CDR). I would bet at least a majority of them would be deemed disabled. If not, then that is the purpose the CDR.
As for Conn, he should be disbarred. But ultimately everybody should get a second chance to show he is worthy of practicing.
Funny how little we have heard about ALJ Daugherty. Looks like he still gets a pension with no real punishment. He is just as culpable as Conn.
Certainly at first blush Conn looks like a bad actor. However am I right that he had these Md's review the files of his claimants and write up for submission RFC's indicating disability? Is this not what DDS physicians do? Then could the argument be made that the DDS physicians are submitting fraudulent RFC's for the 55% of claimants who are denied at IC and recon but then approved at the Hearing ? The point being is the fact that MD's give an opinion on disability. It should be SSA's job to see if this opinion then is supported by the record.
Anon 8:36, according to the 2013 Subcommittee Investigation and subsequent testimony, Conn pre-completed several RFC forms which were used on a rotating basis and without regard to claimant medical condition and given to the respective doctors to sign - which they did and without, according to Drs. Adkins and Amisetty, ever making changes. The report is interesting reading, but you can also watch the hearing on C-Span. It will clarify a lot of what sometimes seems confusing in the press. Here's the link to the first of three panels: http://www.c-span.org/video/?315473-1/social-security-disability-fraud-panel-1
Kinda like how every claimant who would grid at 50 if limited to sedentary is miraculously found capable for light work by identically filled out RFC forms by DDS Md's?
I've seen the comments about how DDS docs fill out RFC forms without having met the claimant and how other physicians doing so (at the request of the claimant or his rep) should be treated the same.
I won't address the quality issue, though I will note the DDS forms I see are pretty varied--postural limitations are generally pretty detailed and carefully tailored to the claimant's impairments, etc. What I really want to point out are two big points that aren't brought up by those scoffing at DDS doc opinions. First, DDS docs are allowed to do what they do under the disability program rules. Second, and more importantly, they have access to and review (with the help of another DDS employee also reviewing all that evidence) every piece of evidence in the file at the time of their review. This includes all treatment notes, CEs, reports of contact with the claimant and others who know him, etc. Your private docs may or may not have any evidence to review and often base their opinions off of a one-time exam (I can hear your brains queueing up the CE argument--note that CE examiners don't have all the evidence, but often are provided with a pretty significant amount of it). So let's not compare apples and oranges.
First of all, DDS doctors do not fill out precompleted forms - they review all of the medical evidence and complete the forms based upon the review. So it is NOT the same thing as the doctors hired by Eric Conn did. While it's unfortunate that all of Eric Conn's cases have to be reviewed, there is no way around it. I just hope that Mr, Conn will finally be disbarred for his actions. SSA should have barred him from representation a long time ago. I think they have not because he has more dirt against some of their judges and they don't want him talking.
Post a Comment