From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
When Deja Mosley gave birth late last year to her second son, Camren, cataracts glazed over both of his eyes. The infant was diagnosed with glaucoma, a condition that will likely render him blind for life.
Doctors suggested that Mosley, 23, apply for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — federal aid for those who are poor and disabled, blind, or elderly. But Camren’s February application was denied, concluding that he was not blind. Doctors told Mosley she should appeal, given Camren’s vision impairment and need for extensive eye surgeries. So she did, in May.
“People said it would take a year,” Mosley said.
Instead, she got an early December hearing date. And then came even better news: In a call last week with her lawyer, an administrative judge ruled that Mosley’s son did deserve the benefits, removing the need for a hearing.
The resolution reflects a stark improvement in a system that had been notoriously sluggish. In January, the Inquirer and Daily News chronicled how Philadelphia’s disability appeal hearing office had the worst average wait time in the country — 26 months — and a backlog of about 5,000 cases. ...
Since then, Social Security has about doubled the number of judges and decision writers assigned to each of the two Philadelphia offices and the one in Elkins Park, and transferred hundreds of cases to be prepared at less-busy offices throughout the country.
The two Philadelphia offices have each cut backlog cases by more than 1,000 this year, and are down to an average of 17 months for an appeal hearing. ...
I'm glad this mother and child got a hearing in seven months but that doesn't change the fact that it's normally taking 17 months. Why did this one happen much sooner than usual? Was the family homeless or otherwise eligible for expediting? I can tell you that none of my clients get a hearing in less than half the normal time frame unless there's some explanation like that.
3 comments:
We always ask for expedited if the case should be found to be critical under HALLEX I-2-1-40. Sometimes expedited treatment is granted, but usually not. Unless it is clearly a TERI case, our local hearing office generally does not expedite. I would be curious as to the basis for expedited treatment in this case, but the fact an on-the-record decision was then rendered is not particularly surprising as HALLEX-I-2-1-40(C)(2) directs the critical case be reviewed for on-the-record decision. It sounds like the child's glaucoma could meet a visual listing which would be a very simple on-the-record award.
At least in some offices, and this may be one. where there appear to be obvious cases, a letter can be sent to the HOCALJ or Office Manager requesting an OTR. No guarantee it will work and some hearings offices take those requests more seriously than others, but when it works, perhaps as in this case, it works well for all concerned.
Of course, since Conn, the entire notion of informal contacts has disappeared and only formal requests for OTR or Dire Need or anything else have to be done in writing. Conn, the gift that keeps on giving.
Since the Eric Conn, con, I have only seen 2 on-the-record decisions. I have practiced in the Social Security Disability field since 1979. I have personally handled approximately 6,500 hearings. I deal with five OHO offices and basically none of the offices are issuing on-the-record decisions. In my opinion, the Conn fiasco caused a reaction by SSA which is affecting claimants throughout the entire system.
Post a Comment