The United States Court of Appeals has denied the petition for rehearing en banc in Hicks v. Berryhill. Hicks held that the process that Social Security used to do new reviews of benefit entitlement for the former clients of Eric Conn was unconstitutional. Social Security may ask the Supreme Court to hear the case but the Court is unlikely to accept it. The normal criteria for Supreme Court review -- conflict between different Circuits or broad national importance -- do not apply here. Social Security must redo these cases or give up on terminating these benefits.
4 comments:
How can we see the Dissenting opinion? Someone please post!
@10:56
I'm not sure. I checked PACER and there is no attached dissenting opinion to the denial of en banc. Maybe the order is referring to Rogers' dissent as to the panel decision?
Yes, I think you are right. The order is poorly worded.
There are big problems with how they handled this from the getgo. SSA wanted ZERO evidence AFTER the Daugherty grants. This highly prejudiced claimants as they waited years to reapply, obtaining large overpayment periods for periods that they could not litigate. SSA only allows an applicant to reach back 17 months from the PFD in a T2 claim and no reach back in a T16 claim. So, with blinders on, the agency is now trying to collect o/p where the claimant was receiving benefits [if the claimant was receiving benefits how was h/she supposed to reapply for something s/he was receiving. It would look like an admission that they were not entitled to the earlier grant, so many lawyers did NOT have them reapply until they finally lost the original Daugherty grant.
Post a Comment