From a press release:
Yesterday, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma announced its decision to grant the Social Security Administration (SSA) partial relief from the 1984 Jordan v. Schweiker decision requiring all representative payees to submit an annual accounting form. This decision allows the SSA to move forward implementing a key provision of the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act.
Commenting on this decision, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, said:
“Last month, President Trump signed into law Ranking Member Larson’s and my bill that improves Social Security’s representative payee program in order to better protect beneficiaries who are unable to manage their own benefits. The District Court’s decision yesterday frees Social Security to implement our commonsense bill that would relieve families from burdensome reporting requirements. I thank Social Security and the Department of Justice for moving quickly to request this relief.”
Subcommittee Ranking Member John Larson (D-CT) added:
“I am pleased that the Court has affirmed the intent of our bipartisan legislation, which strengthened Social Security’s Representative Payee program for vulnerable beneficiaries who are unable to manage their own funds. The ruling allows SSA to fully implement the new law, which lifted a burden on families caring for their children and refocused SSA’s resources on those beneficiaries most at risk for exploitation, including by supporting protection & advocacy groups like Disability Rights Connecticut that exist in every state. I’d like to thank Chairman Johnson for his tireless efforts on behalf of the country’s vulnerable beneficiaries.”
"burdensome reporting requirements" a one page form that requires no proofs. Lots of burden there.
ReplyDeleteVote out everyone over the age of 50 if you want change. Want more stupid, keep doing what you are doing.
Why would the courts need to grant relief to SSA to change their regs? Nearly every circuit recognizes treating physician opinion evidence is of exceptional value, yet SSA is attempting to avoid these rulings with the recent regulatory changes. Just seems odd that they seek approval of the Courts on one issue, but not the other. Do not misunderstand, as I understand it SSA can modify their regs as they see fit (complying with the social security act's rulemaking provisions), although I believe the changes do little more than weaken SSA's position in litigation. It just seems unusually inconsistent in disputing the representative payee issue in Court while skipping this action in regard to medical opinion evidence.
ReplyDelete9:17, it's burdensome on the agency to manage all the forms. And the form is stressful for some folks who are payees.
ReplyDelete9:17am,
ReplyDeleteIt isn't so much the one page form without proofs that causes the burden. It is the waste of untold thousands of man-hours the agency has to waste chasing those people down and literally making them do those useless reports that literally aren't worth the paper they are written on.
10:26 - The Jordan v Schweiker decision was a court order. Need court approval to deviate or terminate the actions.
ReplyDeleteThe treating physician rule makes no sense in practice, as it causes reps to hide negative evidence, and gets kindly family doctors who see their patients three times a year for antibiotics, to fill out dead-man RFCs that have no support in the record. Courts have also slashed the rule by 75%: as written, the old reg was a heavy burden to meet, but Courts only see "the opinion must be given controlling weight even if there is no supportive evidence."
ReplyDelete10:26 here.
ReplyDelete@9:45, Thank you. That makes sense.
@9:59, Explain how the treating physician rule "causes reps to hide negative evidence" despite them being legally required to submit all evidence (regardless of whether it is negative) under 20 CFR §§ 404.1740(b) and 416.1540(b).
Also explain why you presume a "kindly family doctor" who sees the claimant three times in a given year, despite not having access to the record, is still not more capable of rendering an opinion than a CE who sees a claimant a single time for 5 minutes, who also does not have access to the evidence of record.