The Social Security Administration has just asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the White House, to approve a set of proposed regulations on Ensuring Program Uniformity at the Hearing and Appeals Council Levels of the Administrative Review Process. I don't know what this is about. If OMB approves the proposal, it will be published in the Federal Register and the public will be able to comment on it. Social Security will have to consider the comments, possibly make changes in the proposal and then submit it again to OMB for final approval.
If you follow the links deep enough, you get to this description:
ReplyDeleteWe propose to revise our rules to make our procedures consistent nationwide. We plan to change parts 404, 405, and 416 regarding administrative law judge hearings and the Appeals Council review. We proposed revisions to: the time-frame for notifying claimants; the information in our hearing notices; the period when we require claimants to submit written evidence, written statements, objections and subpoena requests; and the manner by which the Appeals Council will consider additional evidence.
Then there's a list of affected code sections and legal authority for the proposed rules. See here: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201604&RIN=0960-AH71
Sounds like it's the next step in allowing AAJs to do hearings.
ReplyDeleteWhat it means is that it will be easier to deny with no more loop holes to get easy remands. Good for the Agency, not so good for the claimants.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but think that "Ensuring program Uniformity" is just another way of saying "Quality" which means deny, deny, deny! Am I just being paranoid? Can I add that to my nonexertional limitations?
ReplyDeleteThis is the agency taking the region one DSI provisions in part 405 national especially closing the record and requiring evidence to be submitted pre hearing. The parts of 405 they don't want to take national will be eliminated. Essentially the way things are done in region 1 and the other regions will be the same again hence "program uniformity"
ReplyDeleteEasy remands? I recently got an AC denial for a claimant who was 57, incapable of PRW, and limited to light work with no transferable skills. He was 55 on the day of the ALJ decision. This is a textbook medical-vocational rule, yet the AC found no error. So you tell me how there are easy remands.
ReplyDelete@10:17AM,
ReplyDeleteIt's an easy Remand when you ignore the law, facts and evidence because you only have to rubber stamp your Remands and create legal sounding, but frivolous theories on which to substantiate the Remand.
@ Anonymous 11:00AM
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not one who generally supports the AC, your suggestion that they "ignore the law, facts and evidence" when issuing a remand is laughable. Certainly this argument holds true in cases they fail to remand like described by 10:17AM.
ALJs are the ones ignoring the law, facts and evidence when issuing determinations. Just look at the number of USDC remands to support this contention.
at 2:06
ReplyDeleteIf every claimant had a competent attorney (one who handles USDC cases) representing them........the backlog would be 10 years.
@ 4:08 PM
ReplyDeleteBravo! This is 2:06 again. I routinely review other reps work for potential appeal to USDC. And I routinely find that they have failed to take some critical step, either in development or in conducting the hearing, that now sabotages a USDC appeal. I think, if only had I or a competent rep been involved, this claim may have turned out differently.
The problem with appealing to the appeals council is the lack of predictability. Tell me the ALJ and give me the facts and pretty much can guess where we are headed. Give me the record and I can guess with a good degree of accuracy what district court will do.
ReplyDeleteAppeals council? Let me get my 20 sided die.