Senator Cory Booker wants to know why it takes so long to get a Social Security hearing. When I started practicing Social Security law in 1979 it took about three months to get a hearing. It's now taking about a year and a half for my clients. It's over a year almost everywhere and around two years in some places. Why? The answer I give my clients is that Social Security isn't given enough money to hire the personnel it would take to do it faster. There are things Social Security could do even with its current staffing such as taking its foot off the the brake pedal on senior attorney decisions but anything that would be perceived as helping claimants is out on the question in the current political environment.
4 comments:
Given the current process, which is presumably different than it was in 1979, what are people's thoughts on how long people SHOULD wait for a hearing in a perfect world with no resource limitations?
I have heard that the ideal is 4-6 months; that allows time to develop the file.
SSA's goal in CARES is an average processing time of 270 days from hearing request to disposition.
I'd like to see hearings scheduled about 4-6 months after they're requested--enough time to find a rep if you want one. Then there's at least 75 days' notice, though I think 90 is even better. So that's 7-9 months to the hearing and I think a month is usually enough to get a decision out unless there's a reason to hold the record open or schedule a supplemental hearing. So 270 as an average does sound reasonable, knowing some will take a year or even a bit more, and some will be dismissed quickly (like if the appeal wasn't timely filed and there's no good cause).
Cut the SGA level in half. The people who are "earning" $11K a year to qualify for earned income tax credit, would all become step 1 denials, saving OHO a lot of processing time. Also the people working for agencies and making $13K a year in seasonal work. A significant number of cases could be decided with shorter hearings and faster decisions.
Post a Comment