Steve Berenson of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law has written for the DePaul Journal for Social Justice about what he considers The Real Social Security Disability Fraud(s).
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Kind of cute when other lawyers see in the injustice of the SSD/SSI system. This article basically focused on 1 Vet. But it was nice to see some serious passion about the injustice.
After doing this since 2005, I have just become kind of numb to the inadequacies of the system.
I wonder if the geniuses in Congress who are in favor of having a SSA attorney at every hearing realize how much money that would cost, and that any supposed fraud would pale in comparison to said cost? Maybe they think these attorneys would work for free?
It looks like they got the case the week before the hearing and ended up gathering over 1000 pages of medical records. Doing that and writing a good brief (which the ALJ is going to want with such a long file) does take a couple weeks.
Agreed. People asking for the adversarial system in SSD cases kind of remind me of Trump and his wall. It would cost a lot more than they think, and it would not be effective at accomplishing what they say they want.
ALJ Frye and others who think they want an adversarial system seem to believe that counsel will be "potted plants." Prior to increasing my disability practice to 90% of my practice, I was a litigator, primarily doing family law and criminal law with a few tort cases. If we went to an adversarial system, I would develop a set of pre-hearing motions which would probably take 1/2 day of which to dispose, then I would want to subpoena those so-called "experts" who did CE's and the Agency Reviewers so I could cross-examine their findings and opinions as compared to those of "real" treating physicians. ALJs should not think that they'd get off easy--part of a litigator's duty is to preserve the record for appeal by numerous objections and motions for proof to present evidence that the judge has previously not allowed into evidence. A typical hearing would last at least 2-3 days. If due process would be preserved, the entire environment would be vastly different.
Judge Frye is no longer President of the AALJ, and from his successors not one word has been heard about this championing this "adversarial" system. This whole law review article, if it's a reaction to Frye's one off-handed comment, would appear to be based on a whimsical remark that had a no better than 0% chance of being implemented.
Right now the bigger area of focus would appear to be the CARES plan's backdoor attempts to replace independent ALJs, with supervised attorney-examiners operating out of the HQ building in Falls Church.
9 comments:
Kind of cute when other lawyers see in the injustice of the SSD/SSI system. This article basically focused on 1 Vet. But it was nice to see some serious passion about the injustice.
After doing this since 2005, I have just become kind of numb to the inadequacies of the system.
I wonder if the geniuses in Congress who are in favor of having a SSA attorney at every hearing realize how much money that would cost, and that any supposed fraud would pale in comparison to said cost? Maybe they think these attorneys would work for free?
"continuance to allow my students and I time to prepare"?! JD HLS MCL. Huh.
It looks like they got the case the week before the hearing and ended up gathering over 1000 pages of medical records. Doing that and writing a good brief (which the ALJ is going to want with such a long file) does take a couple weeks.
@3:31
Agreed. People asking for the adversarial system in SSD cases kind of remind me of Trump and his wall. It would cost a lot more than they think, and it would not be effective at accomplishing what they say they want.
Give us an adversarial system, complete with a right to a jury and a speedy trial... The Republicans would end up begging for a return to ALJs!!!!
ALJ Frye and others who think they want an adversarial system seem to believe that counsel will be "potted plants." Prior to increasing my disability practice to 90% of my practice, I was a litigator, primarily doing family law and criminal law with a few tort cases. If we went to an adversarial system, I would develop a set of pre-hearing motions which would probably take 1/2 day of which to dispose, then I would want to subpoena those so-called "experts" who did CE's and the Agency Reviewers so I could cross-examine their findings and opinions as compared to those of "real" treating physicians. ALJs should not think that they'd get off easy--part of a litigator's duty is to preserve the record for appeal by numerous objections and motions for proof to present evidence that the judge has previously not allowed into evidence. A typical hearing would last at least 2-3 days. If due process would be preserved, the entire environment would be vastly different.
yawn
Judge Frye is no longer President of the AALJ, and from his successors not one word has been heard about this championing this "adversarial" system. This whole law review article, if it's a reaction to Frye's one off-handed comment, would appear to be based on a whimsical remark that had a no better than 0% chance of being implemented.
Right now the bigger area of focus would appear to be the CARES plan's backdoor attempts to replace independent ALJs, with supervised attorney-examiners operating out of the HQ building in Falls Church.
Post a Comment