Professor Jon C. Dubin of Rutgers School of Law -- Newark Center for Law and Justice has written an article for the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy on ending the reconsideration level of review for Social Security disability claims. That article itself isn't available online at this time but an earlier draft of the piece is available at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget website.
There are excellent reasons why "recon" should be eliminated. The problems with doing away with reconsideration, in the view of Social Security and Congress, are:
- If reconsideration is eliminated, more claimants will request hearings. At this time, both Social Security and Congress view hearings as inherently a bad thing.
- If more hearings are to be held, more Administrative Law Judges would have to be hired. At this time, both Social Security and Congress view Administrative Law Judges as sources of error.
- If more hearings are to be held, more claimants will be approved. The goal of both Social Security and Congress is to hold down the number of disability claims approved.
- More Administrative Law Judges would cost more money, far more than would be saved by doing away with reconsideration.
I first became involved with Social Security disability in 1978. Doing away with reconsideration wasn't a new idea at the time. It's never come close to happening since that time. I regard it as a nice idea that stands no chance of happening in the foreseeable future.
8 comments:
Reconsideration is a scam to deny more claimants. Especially if someone is not represented. Over the years Ive seen claimants who appealed after the initial denial because their doctor was the one who told them to apply. Then when they were denied the second time they would give up.They didnt realize the reconsideration was a 90 per cent denial rate and they needed to go to a hearing with a real person who had a brain and would usually do the right thing. (Of course we know thats no longer true) Another wrinkle thats occurring alot more lately is the district offices failing to notice either the claimant or the rep of the denial. Ive seen this three times in the last four months and this never used to happen. Ironically the pilot project with the ten states with no recon has been going on for over 20 years. What a shame.....
The problem with eliminating Recon, is that it gets DDS off the hook of developing cases. In the Prototype states where there is no recon, when the claimant does not send in the requested forms on time, the case is denied for insufficient evidence, and there is no MD even looking at the file, so nothing more is done and the case lands in the hearing office totally bare. With recon, the claimant can get their forms in and a MD or PhD has to look at the file.
Healthcare providers can be very slow in furnishing evidence to support a claim. Reconsideration provides time for missing evidence to reach the disability determination services and result in a better documented decision. The utility of the reconsideration stage is under rated.
@7:30 and @8:43--agreed
If it is eliminated we would miss the creative rephrasing of the initial denial. Such creativity cannot be extinguished.
Then again, the RFC can be exactly the same. You get denied, see more specialists, have an additional diagnosis or more, get more documentation for your symptoms, contact a Senator's office... all which seems to be ignored... and now you haven't been able to work for almost a year... decision: well, there must be SOMETHING you can do!
I practice in an area where we have not had reconsideration for probably 5 years. For my clients, it means they get a hearing about 4-6 months sooner (and I don't have to fill out the same forms twice). My clients who are unfortunate enough to live in the areas where recon is required are just as likely to get on disability, but it just takes longer.
No, recon will not be eliminated. It exists because a statistically significant proportion of claimants are too intimidated to appeal or die while waiting.
Post a Comment