Eric Conn Client Getting "Three Hots And A Cot" But A Former Client Is Homeless
From
WYMT:
Thousands of former clients of Eric C. Conn have had their social
security benefits taken away and are being scheduled for redetermination
hearings to see if and when they can get those benefits back. While
Conn is in prison with a roof over his head and food in his stomach one
of his former clients is struggling to have even that.
"I have nothing...I'm homeless right now and I have nothing," said Thomas Mullins. ...
But nearly two years ago Mullins, who can not read or write, lost his
benefits during a hearing where his only council was the Social
Security Administration....
"They (Social Security Administration) told me I didn't need a lawyer
and I went in front of them and they cut my benefits off without a
lawyer," Mullins explained. ...
Mullins' oldest son, Jacob, says the situation has left his dad considering the unimaginable.
"I know that thoughts of suicide...he's
talked with me about it..and it's just...I mean just hold on as long as
you can," said Jacob Mullins.
Mullins says there is still hope as he has a redetermination hearing scheduled in September. ...
10 comments:
Don't forget that Daugherty is getting "three hots and a cot" as well. Court of public opinion seems silent on him.
I thought it was considered unethical for the SSA to tell people that they don't need representation
. Only when they know they person will stay in pay should they say that, and if the person's case is being reviewed, they can't say that.
Sometimes when an ALJ knows that he probably will pay the claimant, he still wants that person represented so that the decision can be explained and what they must do to stay eligible.
Their was a way to make things work better. Pathetic representation of a civilized society, it appears.
They don't "need" a lawyer. A lawyer may be beneficial for their case, or not. Telling someone they need a lawyer discourages folks from appealing if they don't feel like they can find one. Plus, plenty of folks do go to hearings and win without lawyers. Probably more would win if they had chosen to get a lawyer but it's not at all necessary to have one to appeal.
Basically a rede, found no longer disabled.
It would be interesting to know more facts on his termination--if that is what it was. Was it medical or going back to work? If work did he report it or not? With this bare bones story hard to tell. I'd like to say field office staff would always tell people about representation options, list of reps, etc. but I have seen it not happen a few rare times by reps with anti attorney bias.
10:27 you cant have the facts, they take away from the instant moral outrage.
I am not saying one 'needs' a lawyer but they should be advised of their right to representation.
There must be a red flag, social security does not take one off of benefits without proof!
Not necessarily true, 6:27. Even though I think 'Rivas' is still good law, claimants are taken off or threatened to be taken off all the time even though there might not be proof of improvement. I did lots of hearings on this while I was with Legal Services.
Conn's claimants have an additional burden of proving disability without bogus medical information. Many of them may have been disabled.
A representative explains what got the person on and the medical information necessary to keep them on. It is important that they use their benefits to maintain a medical record.
Post a Comment