In an editorial, the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram falls for Sam Johnson's absurd attempt to blame Social Security's hearing backlog on the lack of a confirmed Commissioner for Social Security. Yes, they make some vague mention of "resources and staff" but the thrust of the piece is that the cause of the backlog is that there's no confirmed Commissioner. That's nonsense. The backlog is 100% caused by the failure of Johnson and his Republican colleagues in Congress to appropriate enough money for the agency. No Commissioner could do anything with this impossible budget situation. Blaming the backlog on the lack of a confirmed Commissioner is such an obvious misdirection by Johnson. He must be chuckling at how easily he fooled them.
22 comments:
As long as there is a huge gap between allowance rates at the DDS and the ALJ, there will be backlogs. If more claimants were awarded the benefits they deserve at the DDS level, the backlog would shrink. As long as we have a congress that doesn't believe in the program and wants to kill it, the backlog will be populated with claimants that should have been awarded benefits in the first place. The backlog problem can't be solved by adding ALJ's alone.
@10:06
I agree, although Credibility, weighing of medical source opinions, mental listings, these issues have all been rewritten from the ground up in the past two years. The changes overall have been claimant friendly (medical source opinion changes seem mixed). I would imagine this is at least contributing to the gap in award rates between DDS and OHO.
Claimant friendly?? Weight no longer accorded to the treating physician??? Available jobs only considered nationally instead of regionally?
My observation. About half the difference between DDS and OHA/ODAR/OHO is new evidence. Condition worsens or didn't get worse but gets confirmed with more tests.
That's a hard problem to fix.
@11:07
That's a big part of it. Also, additional records are obtained during the period at issue, new conditions arise, ages change to trigger grid rules, past relevant work is no longer past relevant work after the 15-year period lapses in between hearing request and hearing date/adjudication date, etc. There are a number of reasons why additional claims are granted at the hearing level that aren't indictments against DDS for a failure to do their job correctly.
In baseball, the base runner wins a tie. This rule should also apply at the DDS. The claimants own account of their limitations should be given greater weight and not be clouded by increasing suspicions of of fraud. Fraud in disability is about the same as in elections. Not much. Claims should be allowed earlier and not delayed for 2 years and then allowed.
Republicans notice money, not people. Make Social Security pay 5% interest on back pay when approved and you will get their attention.
@11:06
1, an established treatment relationship is a positive factor in weighing opinion evidence under 20 CFR § 404.1520c(c)(3). 20 CFR § 404.1520c(b)(2) states supportability is the most relevant factor, but it is incorrect to state treatment relationship is no longer a relevant factor. Keep arguing for treatment relationship. Also, most circuits have established the treatment relationship is an extremely relevant factor and this precedent predates SSA's regulations even recognizing the relationship.
2, the acceptance of medical sources not previously acceptable is a huge, favorable change given the modern claimant is generally treated by RNs and NPs. That's why I characterize the changes as mixed.
3, the requirement that job figures be either in the claimant's region OR in multiple regions in the national economy is set by statute (42 USC § 423(d)(2)(A)). This standard is not subject to change absent an amendment of the Social Security Act by Congress. While some ALJs instruct VEs not provide regional figures, there is little preventing them from doing so. Theoretically, it can be argued a single national job number is technically improper as a single number could not establish jobs existing in several regions in the national economy, and it remains an argument. What was the change?
Working in this game since 1999, I have seen the backlog go up and go down. What I have not seen is how long it takes for an ALJ to write up a decision. It's now 3-4 months or more where it used to be around 1-3 months. This is directly related to the hiring freeze instituted in February 2016.
This article does point out how DDS could whittle this down if they approved more cases initially. But I believe this is a system-wide prejudice not a lack of resources looking over the claim.
About having a new commissioner. It's like appointing the best captain in the world after a ship has begun to sink. It's too late.
This is like electing Trump to make America great again, lol.
The production per ALJ per day has dropped from 2.4 to 1.9 cases. Yes, part of that is due to staff issues but, imho, a good deal of that occurred after the ALJ's lost their ridiculous "quota" case and reflects foot dragging by ALJ's to get their way.
Even before electronic files and decision templates and word processors, ALJ's would schedule five hearings per day, three days per week. If they really wanted to, they could do that now. They just don't want to.
Agreed, Sam Johnson & Company's failure to appropriate funds they knew were needed for agency operations is the number 1 driver of the SSA hearing backlog. Here is a smaller but not insubstantial factor that SSA could fix.
Anyone who has the perspective of seeing the same cases decided at DDS and at the ALJ levels knows that, in effect, different disability standards are applied. Absent 2 or more days a month due to an impairment? You lose at DDS but win at ALJ. Off-task 15% of the time due to an impairment? You lose at DDS but win at ALJ. I can tell from reading many Disability Determination Explanations that State agencies often don't screen well, if at all, for some common functional limitations that would preclude ability to perform SGA. As a result many of those step 5 cases that should have been approved at DDS seep through the cracks and swell the backlog at the hearing level.
7:16 excellent point; I have never seen an DDS evaluation of the clt's ability to SUSTAIN work at the given RFC.
2:10 well done, very well done.
If DDS is soooo bad, why do the ALJs agree so often? Not all chronic health conditions are disabling. Want to get rid of the back log? I can reduce it to less than 90 days. Return the system back to the way it was designed. CAL only. Poof Backlog gone!!!
9:27, CAL started under Astrue. Not the original way the program worked at all.
And if DDS is "sooo" good, then why do 58% of ALJ decisions (I've excluded dismissals here) reverse them? Shouldn't they at least be right more often than not?
@ 9:27 look at what it took to be disabled in 1956, much closer to CAL, it was a comparison not a direction, sorry forgot I was dealing with people that will argue against themselves just to argue.
The rate at which Social Security administrative law judges (ALJs) approve claims for disability benefits dropped for the fifth straight year in 2014, new Social Security Administration (SSA) data show. The ALJ allowance rate has fallen from 63 percent in 2008 and 2009 to 45 percent in 2014. (See figure.)Feb 10, 2015
9:27 AM. Surely, you can't be serious? Ya, I know, don't call you Shirley. Oh, your name is Cheryl? Seriously, you are not really arguing that people with schizophrenia and those who are severely bipolar should be found not disabled, right? I mean, why stop there. Stephen Hawking makes SGA, why can't others with ALS? Some lady named Joni runs a ministry, even though an accident left her a paraplegic. If she can, why can't others, let alone those "lazy bums" that don't want to work just because their back hurts or they have a little anxiety (paraphrasing Senator Rand Paul). Why stop at Compassionate Allowances? Think how much the Republicans could save if they just got rid of disability altogether! And, the backlog would be zero! Naturally, there is no chance the Republicans would actually do that, no matter how much some would like to. If they couldn't get rid of Obamacare, which millions of Americans hate... What are the chances they would even roll it back to 1956? None. What you want to do would require Congress to change the law. You might as well ask for a bridge to Hawaii, or Hillary to be likable!
Part of the difference of the denial rate between DDS and ODAR is the fact the case is more developed over the time it takes to get a Hearing. DDS sees a case with limited or no medical. Claimant gets denied. Claimant wants to get approved and finds out they need medical records. Claimants after stopping work may be eligible for Medicaid coverage in states with access. They then get the treating records.
The idea that DDS just blindly denies is just the ODAR song to itself to feel better about doing such a bad job themselves.
Another important difference in DDS and ODAR reviews is the fact that ODAR gets to see and ask questions of the claimants. In this case a picture is worth more than a thousand word. The personal contact reveals much more information than volumes of repetitive medical records.
Why is no one commenting on the very obvious shift in SSA policy to deny more claims at the DDS level?
It's clear as day to me that the past commissioner sent out some kind of directive for DDS offices to deny claims when in doubt.
This ended up shifting a huge burden of claims to ODAR for which they were not staffed adequately.
Such an idiotic move. SSA will end up spending more money hiring ODAR staff when they could have paid claims from the start.
Why did this even happen? The trust fund has more than enough money.
DDS decisions are not being made by legally trained individuals. That's a huge problem. Having mgt. at OHO hearing offices who are not attorneys can also be a huge problem because they have no clue how the law should be applied. I am still waiting for someone to explain what a HOD does at OHO hearing offices that justifies a GS14 salary. Is a HOD even needed? Can't that money be used more wisely on additional support staff or judges?
Post a Comment