From a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) that Social Security will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow:
We propose to amend our regulations by revising our rules regarding the return of evidence at the Appeals Council (AC) level. Our current rules state that the AC will return to the claimant additional evidence it receives when the AC finds the evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) hearing decision. We are proposing these revisions to give the AC discretion in returning additional evidence that it receives when the AC determines the additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the ALJ decision.
We now use many electronic services that make the practice of returning evidence unnecessary. For example, we now scan most of the medical evidence into the electronic claim(s) file or appointed representatives submit it through our Electronic Records Express system. ... It is neither administratively efficient or cost effective for us to print out documents that have been submitted to us electronically by a claimant or appointed representative in order to return them to the claimant. ...
The administrative burden of processing and returning evidence also has increased significantly over the last few years. ...
4 comments:
Wouldn't they have to acknowledge receiving the evidence in the first place? I have seen too many AC denials were new and material evidence was submitted directly to the electronic folder, mailed in, faxed in, handed to the DO, and the AC denial still only lists the Request for Review as the only thing received after the ALJ denial. You can submit something three different ways and have proof of delivery on each one, and they will still claim they never got it. They look bad, even for the government.
If the evidence submitted does not relate to the period on or before the date of the hearing decision, it would not be exhibited and would therefore not be on the exhibit list with the denial of review. That is why such evidence has, until now, been returned to the claimant. However, the evidence being returned should be addressed in the body of the denial of review, with an explanation that it does not relate to the period through the date of the hearing decision.
So the AC has had such an “administrative burden” that they review cases without accountability, cannot be bothered to explain how they ignore appeals other than saying they found no error, sit on cases for a year and then do nothing ( sorry a 15% remand rate is not a legitimate review). For years, I have heard the agency and representatives alike admonish any would be writer to “get their attention in 2000 words, citing to exhibits” blah blah blah. This is probably the most dysfunctional Star Chamber in SSA and no congressional representative, no advocacy groups; no oversight entity can do anything to get an honest day’s work out of them.
The Appeals Council is an oxymoron. Do a search of this site with the word Appeals Council. We all know what a disgrace this component is. Put all of them to work scheduling hearings or requesting evidence at ODAR or DDS. What’s next, they are too overburdened to review SSI claimants or claimants under 55? It is hard to stomach this level of injustice that surpasses most bureaucracies. Administrative burden indeed.
Even if new evidence does not relate to the period on/before the alj decision, the agency's own rules require the AC to give a protective filing date to coincide with the RR date if the new evidence relates to the period after the alj decision. The reason for giving a protective filing date is because claimant's are prohibited from filing a new claim while their case is pending before the AC for a year or more. Are claimant's getting protective filing dates under these conditions?
Post a Comment