What is NADE's strategic goal of "Judicial Monitoring and Advocacy"? That sounds ominous...what does that mean vis-a-vis SSA ALJs?
How can Allsup and Human Arc be corporate members of NADE, when they represent claimants whose cases are decided by NADE members? Conflict of interest, much? Are they also corporate members of AALJ?
More importantly, perhaps Allsup should spend more time doing their job ahead of the hearing instead of corporate sponsorship, writing papers about the backlog, or interviewing with every paper across the country about the backlog. Had three Allsup hearings last week, not one had records more recent than 2016 in it.
I received a call the other day offering to make me a contract attorney for $1000 contingent fee per case. I would be responsible for all development after recon, at my cost. No thanks.
I received a similar call, 7:02. I, too, declined. It just doesn't make financial sense, even with the relatively high volume practice that we have. I can't imagine who Allsup is getting to take on these cases. Maybe this helps explain why their hearing cases are so poorly worked up.
I believe that the federal government should pass a regulation/statute making contracts that take a credit for SSD benefits as illegal, or void as against public policy, etc.. Many states have laws that would apply voiding subro/credits in the insurance arena (MVA/PI/WC) but the laws are preempted by federal.
If you stopped the $1 for $1 credit then the Allsup problem would take care of itself.
I believe you are referring to private ERISA insurance contracts. The federal government is severely limited in interference in private contracts, however solving the offset problem also could create problems, most notably increasing costs of insurers which would be borne by the insured. I agree the offset provisions are a problem, but due to the lack of education by insurers to the insured, not due to the structure itself.
7 comments:
What is NADE's strategic goal of "Judicial Monitoring and Advocacy"? That sounds ominous...what does that mean vis-a-vis SSA ALJs?
How can Allsup and Human Arc be corporate members of NADE, when they represent claimants whose cases are decided by NADE members? Conflict of interest, much? Are they also corporate members of AALJ?
More importantly, perhaps Allsup should spend more time doing their job ahead of the hearing instead of corporate sponsorship, writing papers about the backlog, or interviewing with every paper across the country about the backlog. Had three Allsup hearings last week, not one had records more recent than 2016 in it.
@ 12:38 PM
Allsup contracts out all its work after Recon to individual reps. They are responsible for developing the MER from that point on.
I received a call the other day offering to make me a contract attorney for $1000 contingent fee per case. I would be responsible for all development after recon, at my cost. No thanks.
I received a similar call, 7:02. I, too, declined. It just doesn't make financial sense, even with the relatively high volume practice that we have. I can't imagine who Allsup is getting to take on these cases. Maybe this helps explain why their hearing cases are so poorly worked up.
I believe that the federal government should pass a regulation/statute making contracts that take a credit for SSD benefits as illegal, or void as against public policy, etc.. Many states have laws that would apply voiding subro/credits in the insurance arena (MVA/PI/WC) but the laws are preempted by federal.
If you stopped the $1 for $1 credit then the Allsup problem would take care of itself.
@12:22
I believe you are referring to private ERISA insurance contracts. The federal government is severely limited in interference in private contracts, however solving the offset problem also could create problems, most notably increasing costs of insurers which would be borne by the insured. I agree the offset provisions are a problem, but due to the lack of education by insurers to the insured, not due to the structure itself.
Post a Comment