The user fee -- really a tax -- on attorneys and others who receive direct payment of fees for representing Social Security claimants will remain at 6.3% in 2018.
26 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Voluntary tax, if you are going to call it a tax. You have the right to avoid it by getting paid by the Claimant directly. You make a choice for convenience, and for that you pay. I am sure that makes me a shill in your eyes.
I would have gladly paid a "user fee" to receive full payment when I had my own practice. As a former criminal defense lawyer, I expected whatever amount I received up front to be the total fee since I didn't have the luxury of the government making sure I received my full fee.
Except FICA is a LAW (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) Where as getting a check cut from the government by government workers for a government claim is a not a law. Thanks for playing, please try again.
Tim are you saying that Claimants cannot be trusted to do the right thing and agree to the contract they signed? Do we then trust that same Claimant when they make a self described level of pain? If they cannot be trusted to pay bills can they be trusted to self report accurately and not be influenced by trying to get a check and exaggerate symptoms?
2:03 PM. I said NOTHING about trusting the claimant or about claimants at all. I am a claimant. SSA has decided not to pay me. I still can't work! It has been nearly 5 years since I was last able to work and 7 years since my ability to work has greatly wained. So, I am going to declare Chapter 7. There was a study about how the economy effects claims. Well, how does disability that is denied effect the economy? The IRS already accepted my $1 offer. Do they really think I can pay my student loans? I had to take them because of garnishment for medical expenses. In the meantime, the government is paying me food stamps and Medicaid. Drugs alone are about $9000 a month. My doctor thinks I am depressed due to serotonin, but I was depressed when taking three medications that raise serotonin. Frankly, seeing doctors depresses me. I am in constant pain, doing anything increases it, eating is one of few pleasures and then the doctor says, "Eat less and exercise MAY help, but we don't want to help you get SSDI because it's not good for you." After 33 years of hearing this from doctors, do you really think it's just serotonin that is depressing me? Well, at least there is politics and the world to "cheer" me up!
For years, I have been reading comments from trolls and SSA employees with really suspicious, hateful attitudes which appear to be based on bias and ignorance of what it takes to honestly and ethically represent claimants in SSDI/SSI cases. Yes, many of us could probably make more money if we jumped into other areas of practice. Once I became acquainted with this practice, I felt that it was a calling. However, other than some "law firms" who take short cuts and don't work their cases, I have to say that I have great respect for most of my colleagues in North Carolina who concentrate in this type of practice. I've retired after 30 years, and I feel sorry for many colleagues who are still at it fighting against "outlier" ALJs and uncooperative bureaucrats.
One misconception strongly held is that $6,000.00 is the "usual" or "typical" fee in these cases. Perhaps that cap may be seen in Raleigh where Charles practices or in other urban areas. I live in a small town setting where my typical clients were 8th-10th grade drop-outs who were functionally illiterate and worked at physically stressful jobs. The pay scales for this area are much lower than at Charlotte or Raleigh. I would only have a case where my fee met the cap 2 or 3 times a year. Once the over-all approval rate dropped below 50%, the ALJs would seldom grant more than one year of past-due benefits. With the low earnings of my clients, most of them ended up with benefits as low as $800--$1000 per month.
One other bit of abject ignorance (or is the comment made with willful distain) that spikes my temper is this comment that an attorney should sue a client who owes a fee. Think about it--about half of my clients have had their homes foreclosed and their cars repossessed or completely broken down before they've gotten to a hearing. THESE CLAIMANTS ARE JUDGMENT-PROOF!! The filing fees to sue would be a further waste of time and money. I guess if I was in the position of having to choose to paying attorney fees or having food and shelter, I'd not pay the attorney either.
If the above anonymous commenter works for SSA, these comments are disturbing. They show extreme contempt for both claimants and reps. This person should really find other employment where he or she won't feel so bitter.
Reality check. Many disability claimants are financially desperate because of their disabilities. If you can't make money from working (because you are disabled) and have to wait a long time to get your disability benefits (thanks Congress, for under-funding the agency), it won't be long until you are broke and then in debt. By the time you get your award, you are so far in debt that you are desperate to get out. You get a bunch of very technical and confusing post-decision notices that many people won't understand from SSA. Money finally starts appearing in your checking account or arriving in your mailbox and you are not exactly sure what it represents (SSI? SSD? Something else?). You start paying your debts and may not even be aware that some of that money was supposed to be an attorney fee. I suppose you could try to fault the person with the disability in that situation, but I don't. The point is, the way SSA does things, it makes it difficult for both the claimant and the representative to make sure that disbursements are properly made to the right people. The band aid SSA slapped on the situation is to handle sending the fee to the attorney while taxing representatives. Alternatives exist that would get SSA out of this expensive check writing business and free up desperately needed agency staff for other more important tasks, but SSA is not receptive to them.
I'm glad you fought the fight for your clients and followed your calling. I'm sad to read that you think SSA employees have "suspicious and hateful attitudes based on bias and ignorance" and sorry you feel that way. Speaking for myself and my colleagues I have discussed representation with, it's the few reps that are unprepared and fail to update the record that frustrate the ALJs. Zealous representation by a well-prepared representative is much preferred in my humble opinion.
So what we see here is that, reps don't want to get stiffed by the Claimant, and they want to get paid. But they don't want to be charged for getting paid, and they also think they are not getting paid enough.
Okay, enlighten me. What is a fair price to pay for making sure you get paid? $20, $50, free? What should the max payout be? $7000, $10,000, no cap straight 25%, 30%, 50%?
Keeping the above statements in mind, that every Claimant is homeless, destitute and staving naked in the street, how much of the back pay do you want to take from them in your calling?
@8:48 - 25% of the back due benefits that your Agency willfully and wrongly withheld from them and that we had to fight for years to obtain. It's interesting that your concern for the poor claimant only comes about once they are entitled to benefits.
9:19 If SS is going to charge the rep, it should be a flat fee. It costs the same to send a fee from a $1,000 back check as it does a $20,000 back check. Yet, with a silly percentage slapped on it, the rate paid to SS varies widely. Better yet, send the entire back check to the rep and take SS out of sending and calculating multiple checks. Let the rep take their fee and send the rest to the claimant, like insurance companies do in other PI cases. If there is going to continue to be a percentage user fee, at least do something with the fee cap. Why is there even a cap? I can ask for 25% with no cap if a case is remanded by the AC. Why does there have to be a cap before that? If SS insists on a cap, at least raise it or index it to inflation or COLA. With no raising of the cap, my actual fees are slowly eroding over the years.
OK, so what we have first is an undefined flat fee amount. And what looks like a call to send the check to the Rep and 25% fee on past due.
Viable alternatives.
I would think that many Claimants would have the same feelings about getting paid from the representative as the representatives feel about getting paid by the Claimant.
@10:06 If they have those same feelings, I have yet to see it. Works all the time in WC and PI practices. Moreover, if the claimant is not paid by the rep, there is recourse through the state bar association. Very little recourse exists for the opposite situation where the claimant does not pay the rep. Moreover, I think claimants might love the idea of a rep getting the check and then paying the claimant if it has the added benefit of the claimant being paid sooner (which would likely be the case).
The ethical thing to do would be for SSAto pay all attorney's fees! After all, the Agency is making the claimants wait. This would give DDS more incentive to get it right, which would cut the number of hearings. I hate the way this system is set up. Was it set up by sadists?
SSA should not have to be the 'middleman' when it comes to paying representatives, PERIOD. The volume of paper (SSA-1696s, SSA-1695s, fee agreements, etc faxed and mailed into field offices, PCs and OHO is ridiculous and wasteful. No wonder work isn't getting done....SSA WORKS AND CATERS TO ATTORNEYS AND NON-ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVES.
This is the only area of law where the opposing party decides how much the opposing party's lawyer will get paid, and charges them to get a check. Imagine if insurance companies would have to approve how much a Plaintiff's lawyer can collect for his work against them, and then charge the lawyer a fee for issuing a check with the lawyer's name on it also.
5:27 PM. Out of what? It has been nearly 5 years since I was able to "work," which included several accommodations. As I stated above, I am filing for chapter 7 (bankruptcy), as in liquidation. I have been in increasing back and hip pain (since I was 17, shoulder pain -both(19 years), hand and knee pain, migraines, etc. I had epilepsy from 12-33 years of age. Lots of falls, including a broken jaw. Medical bills (no insurance) due to several bouts of iritis... No assets (2 old cars- 1 running). Pay out of what? I owe $15000 for rent, etc. to my brother.
Never understood why the "user fee" is a percentage of the attorney fee. The "user fee" is supposed to compensate the government for the extra cost of issuing a separate attorney fee check.
Wouldn't the cost of issuing the extra check be the same regardless of the amount of the check. Thus, shouldn't the "user fee" simply be a flat fee reflecting the actual cost of issuing a separate check?
I believe there are extra steps (or there used to be because of the ancient software used) in calculating past due benefits that go back over a calendar year with COLA involved. I am not sure if that is still the case. It would explain the history behind the percentage some, and then it is just historical momentum, it just keeps going forward.
Funny, you would think a bunch of lawyers with a national organization and a lobbyist would be able to take care of something this simple.
I agree, that's what makes it clear that it's not related to the cost, at least on a case by case basis. @9:35, the need to calculate past due amounts with COLA wouldn't seem to be a good justification, because SSA has to make that calculation whether there is a fee involved or not, to determine the amount of past due benefits due to claimant. The contingency fee is a percentage of the total, correct?.
Insurance companies send settlement checks to lawyers in personal injury cases without charge, which include the attorneys fees, costs, and amount due to the person to whom the money is owed. The lawyer is responsible for accurate disbursement, and any failures in that are stringently policed by bar associations. Why SSA won't do the same is somewhat of a mystery.
I say somewhat because SSA is charged with the responsibility of determining whether a lawyer can charge a fee. In cases of contingency fees that means looking at the contract to determine if it is legal. In claims involving fee petitions that means reviewing them to determine the reasonableness and legality of the fee (although bar associations do that too if a person complains about a fee). I suspect SSA does not expend near enough staff time to justify what is charged, though.
There is absolutely no need for a "user fee" at all. Furthermore, the cap on attorney fees has been set at $6000 for how long now ? Why aren't representatives, like claimants, entitled to a COLA ? Life gets more expensive for everyone, attorneys included. As a claimant, if you're so upset about the 25% fee we charge, then check out the stats for unrepresented claimants vs. represented claimants at the hearing level, and good luck presenting your appeal to an ALJ pro-se. After 27 years of representing claimants, the answer is simple, the fee should be set at a flat 25% with no cap, and the entire retroactive benefits check should be disbursed to the attorney. The check is then deposited into the attorney's trust account, where he or she will then pay the claimant their retroactive benefits, less the 25% fee, and any costs/expenses advanced on the claimant's behalf. It works for all other plaintiff's attorneys, who typically charge 33- 40%. This will help to save SSA resources, and keep more qualified reps in the business of disability law. As it stands today, SSA and the government's attempts at discouraging reps from the process is working, and qualified attorneys are no longer seeing the SSDI/SSI disability practice as viable.
26 comments:
Voluntary tax, if you are going to call it a tax. You have the right to avoid it by getting paid by the Claimant directly. You make a choice for convenience, and for that you pay. I am sure that makes me a shill in your eyes.
I would have gladly paid a "user fee" to receive full payment when I had my own practice. As a former criminal defense lawyer, I expected whatever amount I received up front to be the total fee since I didn't have the luxury of the government making sure I received my full fee.
9:20. Based on your logic, all taxes other than death taxes are "voluntary" taxes. Don't want to pay income taxes or Fica, don't make any money!
Except FICA is a LAW (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) Where as getting a check cut from the government by government workers for a government claim is a not a law. Thanks for playing, please try again.
Tim are you saying that Claimants cannot be trusted to do the right thing and agree to the contract they signed? Do we then trust that same Claimant when they make a self described level of pain? If they cannot be trusted to pay bills can they be trusted to self report accurately and not be influenced by trying to get a check and exaggerate symptoms?
2:03 PM. I said NOTHING about trusting the claimant or about claimants at all. I am a claimant. SSA has decided not to pay me. I still can't work! It has been nearly 5 years since I was last able to work and 7 years since my ability to work has greatly wained. So, I am going to declare Chapter 7. There was a study about how the economy effects claims. Well, how does disability that is denied effect the economy? The IRS already accepted my $1 offer. Do they really think I can pay my student loans? I had to take them because of garnishment for medical expenses. In the meantime, the government is paying me food stamps and Medicaid. Drugs alone are about $9000 a month. My doctor thinks I am depressed due to serotonin, but I was depressed when taking three medications that raise serotonin. Frankly, seeing doctors depresses me. I am in constant pain, doing anything increases it, eating is one of few pleasures and then the doctor says, "Eat less and exercise MAY help, but we don't want to help you get SSDI because it's not good for you." After 33 years of hearing this from doctors, do you really think it's just serotonin that is depressing me? Well, at least there is politics and the world to "cheer" me up!
Since we're just going to throw around terms terms interchangeably, that 6.3% tax is a lot better than the 25% tax the claimants are paying you folk.
For years, I have been reading comments from trolls and SSA employees with really suspicious, hateful attitudes which appear to be based on bias and ignorance of what it takes to honestly and ethically represent claimants in SSDI/SSI cases. Yes, many of us could probably make more money if we jumped into other areas of practice. Once I became acquainted with this practice, I felt that it was a calling. However, other than some "law firms" who take short cuts and don't work their cases, I have to say that I have great respect for most of my colleagues in North Carolina who concentrate in this type of practice. I've retired after 30 years, and I feel sorry for many colleagues who are still at it fighting against "outlier" ALJs and uncooperative bureaucrats.
One misconception strongly held is that $6,000.00 is the "usual" or "typical" fee in these cases. Perhaps that cap may be seen in Raleigh where Charles practices or in other urban areas. I live in a small town setting where my typical clients were 8th-10th grade drop-outs who were functionally illiterate and worked at physically stressful jobs. The pay scales for this area are much lower than at Charlotte or Raleigh. I would only have a case where my fee met the cap 2 or 3 times a year. Once the over-all approval rate dropped below 50%, the ALJs would seldom grant more than one year of past-due benefits. With the low earnings of my clients, most of them ended up with benefits as low as $800--$1000 per month.
One other bit of abject ignorance (or is the comment made with willful distain) that spikes my temper is this comment that an attorney should sue a client who owes a fee. Think about it--about half of my clients have had their homes foreclosed and their cars repossessed or completely broken down before they've gotten to a hearing. THESE CLAIMANTS ARE JUDGMENT-PROOF!! The filing fees to sue would be a further waste of time and money. I guess if I was in the position of having to choose to paying attorney fees or having food and shelter, I'd not pay the attorney either.
Highway robbery
If the above anonymous commenter works for SSA, these comments are disturbing. They show extreme contempt for both claimants and reps. This person should really find other employment where he or she won't feel so bitter.
@2:03
Reality check. Many disability claimants are financially desperate because of their disabilities. If you can't make money from working (because you are disabled) and have to wait a long time to get your disability benefits (thanks Congress, for under-funding the agency), it won't be long until you are broke and then in debt. By the time you get your award, you are so far in debt that you are desperate to get out. You get a bunch of very technical and confusing post-decision notices that many people won't understand from SSA. Money finally starts appearing in your checking account or arriving in your mailbox and you are not exactly sure what it represents (SSI? SSD? Something else?). You start paying your debts and may not even be aware that some of that money was supposed to be an attorney fee. I suppose you could try to fault the person with the disability in that situation, but I don't. The point is, the way SSA does things, it makes it difficult for both the claimant and the representative to make sure that disbursements are properly made to the right people. The band aid SSA slapped on the situation is to handle sending the fee to the attorney while taxing representatives. Alternatives exist that would get SSA out of this expensive check writing business and free up desperately needed agency staff for other more important tasks, but SSA is not receptive to them.
I'm glad you fought the fight for your clients and followed your calling. I'm sad to read that you think SSA employees have "suspicious and hateful attitudes based on bias and ignorance" and sorry you feel that way. Speaking for myself and my colleagues I have discussed representation with, it's the few reps that are unprepared and fail to update the record that frustrate the ALJs. Zealous representation by a well-prepared representative is much preferred in my humble opinion.
So what we see here is that, reps don't want to get stiffed by the Claimant, and they want to get paid. But they don't want to be charged for getting paid, and they also think they are not getting paid enough.
Okay, enlighten me. What is a fair price to pay for making sure you get paid? $20, $50, free? What should the max payout be? $7000, $10,000, no cap straight 25%, 30%, 50%?
Keeping the above statements in mind, that every Claimant is homeless, destitute and staving naked in the street, how much of the back pay do you want to take from them in your calling?
@8:48 - 25% of the back due benefits that your Agency willfully and wrongly withheld from them and that we had to fight for years to obtain. It's interesting that your concern for the poor claimant only comes about once they are entitled to benefits.
9:19 If SS is going to charge the rep, it should be a flat fee. It costs the same to send a fee from a $1,000 back check as it does a $20,000 back check. Yet, with a silly percentage slapped on it, the rate paid to SS varies widely. Better yet, send the entire back check to the rep and take SS out of sending and calculating multiple checks. Let the rep take their fee and send the rest to the claimant, like insurance companies do in other PI cases. If there is going to continue to be a percentage user fee, at least do something with the fee cap. Why is there even a cap? I can ask for 25% with no cap if a case is remanded by the AC. Why does there have to be a cap before that? If SS insists on a cap, at least raise it or index it to inflation or COLA. With no raising of the cap, my actual fees are slowly eroding over the years.
OK, so what we have first is an undefined flat fee amount. And what looks like a call to send the check to the Rep and 25% fee on past due.
Viable alternatives.
I would think that many Claimants would have the same feelings about getting paid from the representative as the representatives feel about getting paid by the Claimant.
@10:06 If they have those same feelings, I have yet to see it. Works all the time in WC and PI practices. Moreover, if the claimant is not paid by the rep, there is recourse through the state bar association. Very little recourse exists for the opposite situation where the claimant does not pay the rep. Moreover, I think claimants might love the idea of a rep getting the check and then paying the claimant if it has the added benefit of the claimant being paid sooner (which would likely be the case).
The ethical thing to do would be for SSAto pay all attorney's fees! After all, the Agency is making the claimants wait. This would give DDS more incentive to get it right, which would cut the number of hearings. I hate the way this system is set up. Was it set up by sadists?
by your logic Tim, then the Claimant would have to pay the fees of the representative if the Claimant lost.
SSA should not have to be the 'middleman' when it comes to paying representatives, PERIOD. The volume of paper (SSA-1696s, SSA-1695s, fee agreements, etc faxed and mailed into field offices, PCs and OHO is ridiculous and wasteful. No wonder work isn't getting done....SSA WORKS AND CATERS TO ATTORNEYS AND NON-ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVES.
This is the only area of law where the opposing party decides how much the opposing party's lawyer will get paid, and charges them to get a check. Imagine if insurance companies would have to approve how much a Plaintiff's lawyer can collect for his work against them, and then charge the lawyer a fee for issuing a check with the lawyer's name on it also.
5:27 PM. Out of what? It has been nearly 5 years since I was able to "work," which included several accommodations. As I stated above, I am filing for chapter 7 (bankruptcy), as in liquidation. I have been in increasing back and hip pain (since I was 17, shoulder pain -both(19 years), hand and knee pain, migraines, etc. I had epilepsy from 12-33 years of age. Lots of falls, including a broken jaw. Medical bills (no insurance) due to several bouts of iritis... No assets (2 old cars- 1 running). Pay out of what? I owe $15000 for rent, etc. to my brother.
Never understood why the "user fee" is a percentage of the attorney fee. The "user fee" is supposed to compensate the government for the extra cost of issuing a separate attorney fee check.
Wouldn't the cost of issuing the extra check be the same regardless of the amount of the check. Thus, shouldn't the "user fee" simply be a flat fee reflecting the actual cost of issuing a separate check?
I believe there are extra steps (or there used to be because of the ancient software used) in calculating past due benefits that go back over a calendar year with COLA involved. I am not sure if that is still the case. It would explain the history behind the percentage some, and then it is just historical momentum, it just keeps going forward.
Funny, you would think a bunch of lawyers with a national organization and a lobbyist would be able to take care of something this simple.
@5:21
I agree, that's what makes it clear that it's not related to the cost, at least on a case by case basis. @9:35, the need to calculate past due amounts with COLA wouldn't seem to be a good justification, because SSA has to make that calculation whether there is a fee involved or not, to determine the amount of past due benefits due to claimant. The contingency fee is a percentage of the total, correct?.
Insurance companies send settlement checks to lawyers in personal injury cases without charge, which include the attorneys fees, costs, and amount due to the person to whom the money is owed. The lawyer is responsible for accurate disbursement, and any failures in that are stringently policed by bar associations. Why SSA won't do the same is somewhat of a mystery.
I say somewhat because SSA is charged with the responsibility of determining whether a lawyer can charge a fee. In cases of contingency fees that means looking at the contract to determine if it is legal. In claims involving fee petitions that means reviewing them to determine the reasonableness and legality of the fee (although bar associations do that too if a person complains about a fee). I suspect SSA does not expend near enough staff time to justify what is charged, though.
There is absolutely no need for a "user fee" at all. Furthermore, the cap on attorney fees has been set at $6000 for how long now ? Why aren't representatives, like claimants, entitled to a COLA ? Life gets more expensive for everyone, attorneys included. As a claimant, if you're so upset about the 25% fee we charge, then check out the stats for unrepresented claimants vs. represented claimants at the hearing level, and good luck presenting your appeal to an ALJ pro-se. After 27 years of representing claimants, the answer is simple, the fee should be set at a flat 25% with no cap, and the entire retroactive benefits check should be disbursed to the attorney. The check is then deposited into the attorney's trust account, where he or she will then pay the claimant their retroactive benefits, less the 25% fee, and any costs/expenses advanced on the claimant's behalf. It works for all other plaintiff's attorneys, who typically charge 33- 40%. This will help to save SSA resources, and keep more qualified reps in the business of disability law. As it stands today, SSA and the government's attempts at discouraging reps from the process is working, and qualified attorneys are no longer seeing the SSDI/SSI disability practice as viable.
Post a Comment