Total fees paid to attorneys and others who represent Social Security claimants came to $1.21 billion in 2018, the same as in 2017. The lack of change is itself surprising. Of course, there was 1.9% inflation in 2018, so, in effect, attorneys lost 1.9% in 2018.
6 comments:
Don't like the rules, practice in another area. If you are losing a nickel on every cheeseburger, selling more cheeseburgers isn't the answer!!!
Oh, I forgot, "it is defending the poor, righting the wrong, tilting the windmill." That dog wont hunt any longer after some of the posts here on fees, if you could take 50% and so could the competition you would do so in a heart beat.
Lets play a new tune.
9:48 AM. How about approving more obvious claims at all levels? How about by believing the testimonies of the claimants and their witnesses? How about having fair hearings that actually try to determine if the claimant meets the requirements instead of finding any excuse you can come up with in order to deny? How about making VE's come up with real jobs existing and HIRING in the local economy in order to deny? In other words, let the market decide if the claimant can work! Then, attorneys wouldn't be necessary. Then, you wouldn't have to complain about attorneys wanting to be paid fairly. But, SSA would rather screw as many disabled people as possible, because the Koch brothers , Rand Paul, etc. don't want to have richer people pay any more in FICA taxes. So, claimants hire attorneys because the have to, not because they want to. I am sure you would rather have fewer attorneys, because that makes screwing more claimants easier. When we're denied, we can give up, commit suicide, try again... Apply for Chapter 7, live off relatives, public housing (if you can get it), or arrange other accommodations (rob a bank?). Frankly , giving me SSDI would be cheaper for the government. I would have to use some for health insurance. Now , I get all the PT, therapy, chiropractic , MRI's , etc. I can get in what feels like a futile attempt to get SSDI. Being denied doesn't make me able to work. It makes me more and more desperate. I hate to think what that could lead to ... Just for the record... I would GLADLY pay 25% of my back pay if I could get the nearly 5 years of back pay that I am "owed."
@9:48
Actually, 406(a) fees are not capped. 406(b) fees are capped at 25%. In theory, you could seek well over 50%. However, since SSA only withholds 25%, generally the result is 25% in 406(a), EAJA fees, and a reasonable fee under 406(b) minus EAJA. I recall a number of years back stories of a rep getting a few hundred dollars using a fee petition despite the claimant's disability beginning within the 5 month waiting period, resulting in a fee technically over 100% of past-due benefits. Average result in effect is closer to 33%-40%, which is pretty standard in non-SSA areas of practice.
Losing 1.9% due to inflation does not mean the average case results in a net loss as indicated by your cheeseburger analogy. I suspect the average representative does turn a profit. Notifying representatives of an effective loss of 1.9% in earnings is reasonable as it allows representatives to adjust their practices (cutting costs, rebalance SSA with other areas of practice, etc.)
Maybe less money, after inflation, because hearings are being heard sooner than before?
Now if we could just lose 1.9% of lawyers....
3:55 PM. STOP denying people who ARE DISABLED and the lawyers won't be NEEDED!!!
Post a Comment