Ned Pillersdorf's Facebook page indicates that there will be a telephone hearing on August 10 on his motion to stop Social Security's plan to try to cut off the disability benefits of almost 1,500 of Eric Conn's former clients in Kentucky and West Virginia.
I keep wondering when each of these folks gets an individual evidentiary hearing on the question of whether they were found disabled as a result of "fraud or similar fault." Social Security seems to be trying to go yada, yada, yada past this issue but it seems to me to be basic administrative law as well as basic due process.
The evidence of this "fraud or similar fault" is so strong that Social Security wants to summarily cut all these claimants off benefits, yet it wasn't strong enough that:
The evidence of this "fraud or similar fault" is so strong that Social Security wants to summarily cut all these claimants off benefits, yet it wasn't strong enough that:
- A U.S. Attorney would bring criminal charges against Conn;
- The Kentucky Bar would try to take away Conn's law license or discipline him in any way;
- The Social Security Administration would bring changes that would prevent Conn from continuing to practice before the agency.
If, or perhaps when, these evidentiary hearings start, I'd like to hear the testimony of the person at Social Security who is responsible for bringing actions to bar attorneys from practicing before the agency because of misconduct. Why didn't you bring an action against Conn? Or, maybe, you did and couldn't convince an Administrative Law Judge to discipline Conn? Which is it?
Conn's perceived fraud is resulting in a summary penalty to his clients? That makes no sense. SSA should be going after the fraudster, if he is one. Not against his clients, who are probably overwhelmingly disabled. I hope a Judge puts a stop to this summary penalty.
ReplyDeleteFirst prove there was fraud. Second prove who benefited from the fraud. third, penalize only those who benefited from the fraud.
Conn probably had many clients who were actually disabled and had proof of disability in the claims file in addition to the suspect MD.
If 1500 of the clients are all disabled I'm the queen of England! Please! Who benefited- Conn & the "disabled" so therefore lies the fraud!
Delete7:37 PM,
ReplyDelete1. SSA is not a law enforcement agency. What does "going after the fraudster" mean in this context? Putting Conn in a special SSA-run prison?
2. The odds are that some of Conn's former clients are "overwhelmingly disabled." But it is extremely unlikely that every single one of the approximately 1500 claimants would have met SSA's disability standard without fraudulent evidence. These hearings aren't a "penalty." They're a means of trying to separate those who were/are actually disabled from those who were/are not.
3. "First prove there was fraud. Second prove who benefited from the fraud. third, penalize only those who benefited from the fraud." That's what SSA is doing. The upcoming hearings are the third step, except that SSA isn't "penalizing" anyone simply by acting as a responsible steward of public funds.
As a retired ALJ I can tell you that notwithstanding regulations to exclude attorneys and non-attorney practioners from appearing before SSA, SSA has a poor record of going after representatives who are actually bad apples. They have gone after some good attorneys who just aren't well organized, but as for those who are real crooks, they don't bother. And the only thing they can do is exclude a rep from practice before the agency. Unlike other agencies they can not impose civil penalties.
ReplyDeleteSame with bad doctors - there lies the entire problem. No internal or external monitoring, therefore crooks & monsters. It's a shitty world because no one does their jobs.
DeleteAs 7:37 demonstrates,the Agency is run by non-attorney bean counters who have no idea what due process is. Simply pushing through Kangaroo, fast track hearings and completely disregarding evidence in the original file without establishing apriori that this evidence in EACH and EVERY case is in fact fraudulent, is not providing Due Process. The Baltimorons were never big on due process anyway and any notion of fairness is simply verboten in any discussion you have with their minions. As usual, its square peg meet round hole.
ReplyDelete"Why didn't you bring an action against Conn? Or, maybe, you did and couldn't convince an Administrative Law Judge to discipline Conn? Which is it?"
ReplyDeleteCan an ALJ discipline an attorney? I thought all they could do was refer an attorney to the OIG for investigation?