Pages

▼

Feb 3, 2018

Here We Go Again

     The Social Security Administration is planning to review the cases of 2,000 more of Eric Conn's former clients.
     And, there's this, "Officials say additional information has been received from Conn which implicated another bribery scheme. This scheme involves at least one other judge."
at

5 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:46 AM, February 03, 2018

    How far does this go back too?

    Didn't Federal Judge Thapar put a "Statute Of Limitations" on how far the SSA could back ... or is this from another Judge?

    I see more suicides coming.



    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:49 AM, February 03, 2018

    How far does this go back too?

    Didn't Federal Judge Thapar put a "Statute Of Limitations" on how far the SSA could back ... or is this from another Judge?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:12 AM, February 03, 2018

    I think a Judge did do that. Not sure of His/Her name.
    From what i am seeing, this is another set of folks that had a different Judge ( other than Judge Daughtery(SP)) during their hearing that had Conn.
    Those that see a Dr regularly since getting their SSI/SSDI should be OK. But, it's hard telling with the SSA.
    The SSA said the next round could bring new evidence of declining health to the hearing.
    Good-Luck to those people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous2:14 PM, February 03, 2018

    I would hope that most of them are disabled even if they got help to win their cases. If one give up working to wait on a check once a month, they usually are disabled though maybe not by SSA standards. Hopefully, they did use their benefits to get the medical care necessary to substantiate their cases.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:10 PM, February 03, 2018

    This sounds decidedly different from the prior cases. SSA readjudicated the prior cases without consideration of the presumably fraudulent evidence involved, resulting in many claimants being found not to have been disabled and therefore overpaid. This sounds more like aggressive and targeted CDRs, potentially resulting in termination of benefits, but not retroactive determination of being not disabled and therefore overpaid. Of course, the sticking point will be formulation of the comparison point decision (CPD) for reference in the medical improvement determination. How will the agency determine the claimant's condition as of the CPD if there is a suspicion that the original decision was erroneous?

    ReplyDelete