Feb 28, 2019

Confusion Reigns

     Since this sort of thing always seems to be of interest to people, I'll post another note from our database made by a legal assistant at my firm. This concerns a case where some parts of Social Security say they have no record of me representing the client even though other parts, say, yes, we've got that paperwork. That matters since the client has been approved. Far more important though is that even though the claimant has been found disabled because of cancer, the agency can't seem to find a way to pay him. If you're approved due to cancer, you almost certainly have a terminal illness so this is an even more urgent situation than usual. Anyway, here's the note which may give some of the flavor of what it's like to deal with Social Security these days:
Forgot to mention that there is a NOT2 [some sort of notice letter, I think] in file showing you are the attorney. ____ did call me back but it’s still a mess. No one can figure out why you aren’t showing on the screen when a phone call is made and ____ can’t fix it.

Not only that, the entire thing is a comedy of errors, actually, more like a tragedy.

While nothing seemed obvious to ____, we eventually found a screen that shows decision made 2/5/19 that  clt [claimant] met 13.02 [which is for cancer] as of 2/15/2017 (which it the onset we wanted). BUT, there’s no notice of any kind. The case at DO [District Office] just shows “closed.” Doesn’t show it as being at the payment center. But doesn’t SSA have to send it to PC [Payment Center]? He said, “yes.” So, if it’s closed at DO and you didn’t send it to the PC, how is supposed to get to PC? Silence. I need an answer. If he’s assigned, wouldn’t he need to send it to PC? He said call the PC. What if I call and it’s not at PC? He says call back. And say what? Speak to whom? He couldn’t say.

____ mailed a new NOT2 showing fee agreement approved today, but date of onset still says 10/18. And something called a Dickle screen that shows medical onset of 2/15/17 and a copy of the 831 from the recon.

If he knows all of that, why can’t he fix the system?

When I hang up and call back, the DO says there is no 1696 on file. No one seems to know what to do about it. Clearly, it has been in their possession. I have a letter from DDS 1/2019 acknowledging the 1696, we have the NOT2, we have the acknowledgment of the 1695.

I called the PC, 205-801-____. ____ says nothing is in queue. The program they work from, nothing in there “enterprise wise.” She says DO has to send the case there.

I called ____ , the supervisor. Ext ____. Left a very long and detailed message. I will be surprised if I get a return call and if I do not, I’m not sure where to go from here.
     By the way, we generally don't take on the cases of claimants we know to be terminally ill. We tell those folks to file the claim and expect to be approved quickly. This claimant had other very serious health problems at the time we took on the case in 2017 but had not been diagnosed with cancer. This case has been stuck at the initial and reconsideration levels since 2017. We were hoping he'd be approved not just from the time the cancer was diagnosed but from the date he stopped work in 2017 which is why there's the discussion above about onset date.
     The sort of delay that happened here doesn't happen often. When it does happen, it usually happens to people who are really, really sick. Someone at Disability Determination really wants to approve the claim but runs into a lot of resistance. It appears to me that this happened at both the initial and reconsideration levels. Finally, after the cancer diagnosis, the resistance faded and they're approving him but we're not absolutely sure that they're going back to 2017. That date issue may be part of the problem or it may just be a systems problem. We don't know.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

While I'm not an Attorney I do occasionally sign on as an Authorized Representative for clients. What you are describing regarding SSA saying they have no record of a representative in one spot but do in another, happens all to frequently for me.
Normally I find out when I contact the examiners office and am told a 1696 form is not in the file. When I contact the local field office I am told, yes the form is here however its only in the SSDI file or only in the SSI file and we need to add it to the other claim.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a query to your U.S. Senators is in order. They need to understand how funding impacts the sick and dying.

Anonymous said...

It sounds quite possible that the claim went to DQB before being effectuated and sent to PC. An SSA employee with limited knowledge might not catch this.

Anonymous said...

SSA-1695, SSA-1696, fee agreement forms should ALWAYS be sent to the field office, not the DDS. The DDS' do not have the capabilities to update the NOT2 screen. And it should go to the field office that has ownership of the claim or appeal. An acknowledgement letter is sent to the attorney or non-attorney representative for receiving the SSA-1695. The packet of forms should not be mailed in separately but rather should come in together.

Anonymous said...

Like the first commenter above, I wonder if the issue is the 1696 being added to the SSI claim and not the SSDI one, or vice versa. I see this often in concurrent claims (along with problems where the claimant's address is updated for one title's claim and not the other).

Anonymous said...

We always send our initial documents to the field office together. It is amazing how often they will have all documents that were sent together except for one. How does one document that was mailed in the same envelope with others not make it there? The other issue that bugs me occurs when we do an online application for a client and send in the forms only to have them returned because they have not yet received the signature page they send with the application summary to the client. It just generates extra work for them and us. WHy not go ahead and put the info in the system? That would make too much sense, I guess. As a legal matter, once they have been notified that we are the rep, I think they have an obligation to acknowledge that, whether or not they process the form. The other issue, while I'm ranting, is the refusal to accept electronic signatures on the 1696. This violates two federal statutes requiring the use and acceptance of electronic signatures and their policy adds an additional requirement not found in the regulations which is also illegal. I'm about ready to file for a Writ of Mandamus on this issue.

Anonymous said...

I do not mind representing claimants with serious illnesses like this claimant. I take those type of cases knowing that I will probably not receive a fee. I look at that type of case as "free advertising." I am old school regarding attorney advertising. I have represented Social Security claimant since 1979 and I do not like attorney advertising. Also, I do not think a television ad featuring me would work because "I have a face for radio." I don't advertise on radio either. I have had several cases on the Compassionate Allowance list that were denied by the DDD and had to go to a hearing. At least one of those cases was denied by an ALJ. That client ultimately won. I do not tell anyone to go to SSA to fill on their own. If the case is for Title II and is approved fast there might not be an Attorney Fee and I recognize that. I take these type of cases for service to the public and for good will.

Anonymous said...

@1:11 Good for you!

While some cancers are terminal, most aren't. A cancer diagnosis is no sure thing to being approved. I think probably more are approved than denied because treatment can heal or at least arrest the progress of many cancers.

Reconsiderations are adjudicated in the field office unless there has to be a manual award (A101).

Anonymous said...

I would call your regional commissioner. Doubt pursuing DO and payment centers further would be productive. Cases going to DQB are clearly marked. Once you put this much energy into a case like this and keep hitting the wall at multiple levels; you have a better chance with a regional commissioner. At least try that before contacting your senator.

Anonymous said...

I have had cases where claimant's have signed up with two different attorney firms. Maybe that is why they want an ink signature

Anonymous said...

It is Southeastern PSC. Probably the worst PSC when it comes to job knowledge. I'm already dreading filing for retirement in 4 years because they will have jurisdiction of my claim. Simple and easy, but I know they will screw it up.

Anonymous said...

95+% retirement claims are processed in the FO with no PC action at all. The ones that involve PC almost always involve prior or current entitlement on some record. A straight, regular retirement claim will go through without a problem from PC.

Anonymous said...

Here's an idea .....do away with Windfall Offset AND direct payment of attorney & non-attorney fees. SSA should NOT have to be the middleman for making sure reps are paid their fees!!

Take the claimant to court if they don't pay their fee.

Then, the agency can get back to tackling other backlogs and provide world class service to those that are not being served because of the above mentioned workloads.

Field Offices (FO's) are inundated with faxes and mailed in paperwork, most of the time in multiple copies two, three, and sometimes more. Who the heck has time to go through that much paperwork on ONE case?? No one does! It's ridiculous to think anyone that works in a FO have that kind of time.

People are lined up outside the doors well before opening at 9am. On Wednesdays, when offices close early, and employees think they will get some free, uninterrupted time to dig in on their work, lo and behold, meetings or training are scheduled and many times the public is still there waiting to be served. They know if they get to the office before the doors are locked, they will be see and waited on. So there is not much "down time" any day. I could go on and on, but having worked for SSA many years, something has to give. Unfortunately, it is the morale and sometimes the health (mentally and physically) of the employees that is at stake. The clientele coming into offices are demanding and attitudes when they walk in the door. So different compared to years ago. BURN OUT to emoloyees comes fast.

JUST PAY BENEFITS TO CLAIMANTS UNDER BOTH THE DIB & SSI PROGRAMS FOR THE SAME MONTHS & MAKE ATTORNEYS AND NON-ATTORNEY REPS GO AFTER THEIR FEES DIRECTLY FROM THE CLAIMANT(S).

Russ said...

@7:13: Just as much of the public is unaware/uneducated as to the SSDI/SSI system, so many of the SSA employees appear to be uneducated as to the legal system. Almost all states have laws that preclude collection of money from an adverse court judgment if the defendant has few or exempt assets which could be attached. Certainly because of the financial standards, all SSI beneficiaries are thus judgment-proof--you'd only incur additional costs by suing them. Because of the long, drawn-out process needed to qualify for benefits, many successful SSDI beneficiaries are also judgment-proof. If SSA wants to get rid of the burden of processing and payment of attorney fees, SSA could do what Charles has advocated for years--simply look at the 1696 and make the check out to both the attorney and beneficiary, then send it to the attorney, who will put it into his/her client trust account (CTA) and disburse funds to the beneficiary after paying themselves the contracted fee. The beneficiaries are protected by the state bars--the quickest and easiest way for an attorney to be disbarred is to touch a single cent of client's money in the CTA. This could free many SSA employees to do other tasks and would help the beneficiaries and representatives.

Tim said...

I can attest to the part of being judgment proof. Even the IRS accepted my $1 Offer and Compromise. $4000-$7700 (pension) a year for 4 years doesn't go very far. It makes you appreciate when the food bank has tooth paste and razors. It has been 5 years since I last "worked" with no end in sight. I have little confidence that I will ever be approved. Discouraging doesn't come close... Social workers tell you , "They turn everyone down the first time." This isn't exactly encouraging.
I received a letter from collections company for my student loans a week ago. Doesn't the IRS/SSA share info with the DoE? Sometimes I think SSA is trying to run out the clock (DLI) on as many people as they can.

Anonymous said...

Yes!!!!!! I’m in pc3 and I totally agree.