From The Hill:
Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) introduced a bill that addresses many of the [Social Security disability] program’s functional shortfalls. His Making DI Work for All Americans Act of 2018 (H.R. 6352) would also make the program solvent over the long run, setting the stage for a significant payroll tax cut. ...
[T]he bill would add reviews for “outlier” administrative law judges (something that would have applied to a now-imprisoned administrative law judge). And to promote a more equitable determination process, it would subject SSDI judges to a code of ethics similar to those applied to other judges.It would also empower disability applicants by cutting the SSA out of the representative/client relationship. Instead, applicants would be in charge of their own money. ...
In terms of the standards for determining who’s eligible for benefits, the bill would require the SSA to update the archaic list of jobs that exist in the national economy ...
The bill seeks to improve return-to-work rates by having the SSA conduct more frequent and more comprehensive continuing disability reviews, using the most appropriate standards available to determine continued disability status.Finally, the bill would help restore the program to its original goal of preventing poverty without tapping the regular Social Security trust fund. To this end, it establishes a flat, anti-poverty benefit for all new SSDI beneficiaries. ...By the way, Rokita isn't running for re-election in the House of Representatives. Instead, he's running for the Senate. An old poll showed him running way behind incumbent Democrat Joe Donnelly.
OMG, that is ridiculous. I worked my butt of to get a professional position that paid very well, and at times when I was younger, worked 2 jobs 7 days a week and my SSDI benefit reflects that. It is not much, but anything lower would make me homeless for sure. Under this proposal my monthly benefit would be the poverty level for 1 person or $1011 monthly. I would lose hundreds of dollars a month. I would get the same as someone who worked minimum wage jobs part time only. That is not fair. Granted, he said for NEW BENEFICIARIES, but still, it is s step in the wrong direction and will effectively CUT people's benefit level, even if they are new and even if it does not affect me.
ReplyDeleteIt could, of course, affect me though. Suppose I used the trial Work program and succeeded but 18 months down the rod needed my benefits back, would I get the reduced $1011? That would effectively PREVENT anyone from even trying to get back to work. WRONG!!!
Todd Rokita lost in the primary in May to Mike Braun.
ReplyDeleteIs Rep. Rokita angling for a big donation from the Heritage Foundation? His bill seems to include items on HF's wish list to slash the Social Security Disability program. Cutting SSA out of the representative client relationship is shorthand for discouraging representation for the poor, which means fewer poor disability claimants with good claims will win. Reviews for outlier ALJs sounds like attacking judicial independence, though if you did that at least as much scrutiny should go on the outliers who deny at a far greater rate that the norm, than those who grant at a far greater rate. Passing a bill to require SSA to update the archaic list of jobs? Great idea, but does Rep. Rokita know that SSA already is doing that?
ReplyDeleteMike Braun is Donnelly's opponent...
ReplyDeleteInteresting that his definition of outlier only applies to ALJ reversals that allow benefits and not to affirmations of benefit denials except in cases where the ALJ issues a large number of total decisions. Basically it is drawn on the Conn/Daugherty issue and nothing else.
ReplyDeleteThere is a typo in the article - the bill number is HR 6532, not 6352 (the link is correct, though).
ReplyDelete"For purposes of this section, the term “outlier administrative law judge” means an administrative law judge within the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review of the Social Security Administration who, in a given year—
ReplyDelete(1) determines that the applicant is entitled to disability insurance benefits more often than 90 percent of administrative law judges making determinations under this title; or
(2) issues more decisions than 90 percent of administrative law judges making determinations under this title."
So yes, the text as currently proposed only targets approver outliers, not denier outliers, but legislators of both parties stake out starting positions that leave room for compromise.
Please get SSA out of the atty/client relationship. It is a huge burden on SSA to basically be the secretary for the attorneys. Not to mention the attorneys rarely help the client, but make sure to collect their check when the claimant wins their appeal. SSA attorneys are nothing less than leaches.
ReplyDeleteCutting SSA out of the representative client relationship is shorthand for discouraging representation for the poor, which means fewer poor disability claimants with good claims will win."
ReplyDeleteWhy would this have any bearing on poor claimants versus any other claimants? Are poor claimants more likely to stiff their lawyers than richer clients? I get that more affluent clients have money with which to pay, but once that back pay comes in, the poorer client does, too.
This always reads to me as, "Judge, you're going to hear my client testify to a lot of things, and you should believe them because they've always told the truth, always worked hard, and always done the right thing. But I don't trust them to pay my bill, so would you guys cut my fee out of that check so I don't have to chase it down? Thanks."
And yes, I know it's not that simple.
Congratulations 7:09, that is one of the most honest things ever posted here. Thank you.
ReplyDelete7:09 Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Assuming you work for a living, would you agree to have your employer send your entire salary directly to everyone you might owe money to, with the understanding that you would have to dun, bargain and negotiate with each one of them to get back the portion you should be able to keep every two weeks? I suspect not. Would you leave that employer to go to one that did not do that to your salary, everything else being equal? I suspect so. Your questions then answer themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe solution here is obvious. Send the retroactive benefits to the attorney’s dedicated trust account with an indication of the approved fee amount and the amount due the client. Bar rules in every state are extremely strict about trust accounts and attorneys owe an enforceable fiduciary duty to their clients to pay benefits received promptly and account for them. Any attorney fool enough to not comply risks almost automatic disbarment. The state bar associations’ enforcement of trust account rules is much more rigorous than anything that SSA can or is doing now on fee issues. The system has worked for funds in numerous settings such as personal injury, workers comp, legal fee retainers, property transactions, etc. for many decades. The fact that SSA spends administrative staff time struggling to handle all these fee issues when it could easily avoid them is an ongoing waste of Agency resources.
If SSA struggles so much to figure out 25% with a cap of $6000, how can we trust them to determine how medical conditions effect limitations? How multiple conditions effect each other? I had 2 jobs in last 15 years, VE gave wrong job title/description for each. Error was toward a more skilled job in both cases. ALJ made so many factual errors and assumptions... none in my favor. I am sure if they screwed me out of 3-4 years of back pay, I might not want to give the lawyer his "cut."
ReplyDeleteBRAVO 4:48!!!
ReplyDelete4:48 A dedicated account controlled, not by the Claimant, but by the representative, say like Conn? Or the members of the Bar that have been so helpful to the Conn claimants? Yeah gonna trust that a lot!
ReplyDeleteFind your next ambulance to chase.
Please. Explain how doing some math and writing 2 checks (proverbial) constitutes anything more than a inconvenience for SSA. Being denied by an ALJ after nearly 3 years of being unable to work , having to appeal to AC then Federal Court... closing in on 5 years and still no hope... Now , THAT is a HUGH BURDEN!!!!!
ReplyDelete