A suburban Chicago newspaper reports on the brutal backlogs that await so many people who file claims for Social Security disability benefits. I hope these press reports ultimately help
There is a consistent confusion regarding this idea about the wait for a decision. She got her decision at the initial level. It was timely. She just didn't like the decision. Once it gets to a judge there is no "unlimited" time to make a decision....rather the judges are under strict deadlines to move cases and hounded constantly when any of those deadlines are missed. "Let's hope Congress takes notice and takes action," Seriously??? Congress has starved the Agency for years. More clerical boots on the ground and the delays to get to hearing would decrease. And if the Agency would just listen to some of the suggestions from the field regarding efficiencies, well that would help too.
There is one judge at our OHO who was removed for (among other things) taking forever to issue decisions. She granted about 60%. Another judge we have denies 80%, and regularly takes a year to issue decisions, and has done so since becoming an ALJ. A lot of outlier deniers take inordinate amounts of time to issue a decision (6-7 months plus). But hey, as long as they are denying cases, all is well.
I will continue to say this. If claimants would keep their scheduled hearings, this would help the backlog. Our OHO office has 3,000 postponements a year, most of them are for claimants who appear at a hearing to have more time to hire an attorney. There needs to be more pressure on claimants, if they plan on hiring an attorney, that they do so prior to their scheduled hearing day. I understand there are extenuating circumstances, if an attorney withdrawals from the case. But this would be a start. In most servicing locations claimants have at least 12 months to hire an attorney. And for 1:46, temporary benefits is not the answer, that will only create more overpayments.
5 comments:
I think it's great that SSA backlogs are now getting the public attention they deserve.
Let's hope congress takes notice and takes action.
There needs to be a deadline for SSA award/denial decisions. Having an unlimited period of time to make a decision is ridiculous.
There is a consistent confusion regarding this idea about the wait for a decision. She got her decision at the initial level. It was timely. She just didn't like the decision. Once it gets to a judge there is no "unlimited" time to make a decision....rather the judges are under strict deadlines to move cases and hounded constantly when any of those deadlines are missed. "Let's hope Congress takes notice and takes action," Seriously??? Congress has starved the Agency for years. More clerical boots on the ground and the delays to get to hearing would decrease. And if the Agency would just listen to some of the suggestions from the field regarding efficiencies, well that would help too.
@ 6:02,
There is one judge at our OHO who was removed for (among other things) taking forever to issue decisions. She granted about 60%. Another judge we have denies 80%, and regularly takes a year to issue decisions, and has done so since becoming an ALJ. A lot of outlier deniers take inordinate amounts of time to issue a decision (6-7 months plus). But hey, as long as they are denying cases, all is well.
@6:02 It has nothing to do with liking the decision.
Most applicants would be happy getting their decisions faster regardless of what that decision could be.
Deadlines need to be set period. if those deadlines elapse, temporary benefits should be issues.
I will continue to say this. If claimants would keep their scheduled hearings, this would help the backlog. Our OHO office has 3,000 postponements a year, most of them are for claimants who appear at a hearing to have more time to hire an attorney. There needs to be more pressure on claimants, if they plan on hiring an attorney, that they do so prior to their scheduled hearing day. I understand there are extenuating circumstances, if an attorney withdrawals from the case. But this would be a start. In most servicing locations claimants have at least 12 months to hire an attorney. And for 1:46, temporary benefits is not the answer, that will only create more overpayments.
Post a Comment