From a list of Trump Administration legislative proposals for Social Security:
Change the Representative Fee and Approval Process. This proposal would eliminate fee caps, and relieve SSA of responsibility for fee approval, withholding, and payment functions; however, it would not affect our ability to prescribe who may and may not represent claimants. This proposal would streamline and decrease SSA’s operations and hearings workloads, allowing employees to focus on adjudicating more cases and completing other high priority workloads, thereby better serving the public.No, this isn't happening with Democrats in control of the House of Representatives but it does give an insight into Trump Administration attitudes.
35 comments:
They also said he wouldn't be POTUS and there was collusion, so I wouldn't count your chicks (or checks) just yet.....
I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the "administrative fee" that they charge on top of my fee withholding was to offset the administrative cost incurred for performing this function
Would the traditional lien model apply similar to personal injury cases where the Attorney/Rep places a lien on back benefits and social security amounts and the checks would be sent to the attorney/rep to be deposited in a trust account and subsequent payment and disbursements?
@9:52
Nothing in that blurb about saving money or cost. It's more about better allocating personnel and allowing them to work on something more important than rep fees.
When the check fee was imposed during the first term of Clinton it was sold as a method to finance the Ticket to Work. Some of the fees might have been used to offset administrative costs of withholding and paying the attorney fees. If this happens I have no doubt it will "streamline" the system. Claimants will not be represented, attorneys will not take cases, SSA will have less disability work etc. The argument against this must be crafted to discuss the implications for the clients, not the attorneys.
The Legislative proposals would also eliminate Fee Caps. Also, proposed for elimination is Reimbursement for Representative Travel.
@11:30am. I think that as long as attorney's can still utilize the traditional laws related to claiming liens, more claimant's will be represented.
The Administration will have to draft any checks made out to both the claimant and the attorney. It will be exactly as PI case checks are handled. Nothing in the proposals indicates that somehow the Administration is not going to be bound by everyday lien laws.
@10:59
I understand that the blurb does not explicitly mention saving money, but if they are collecting a fee, presumably that fee could and should be used to hire more personnel to work on that aspect of the administration, thereby reducing the workload of other employees
I agree with 10:37.
My firm is trusted to handle large settlements from personal injury cases, but the SSA doesn't trust me to take the proper fee on a SSD case.
Just sent the joint check to the Attorney; Attorneys can handle this like any other case, and SSA personnel can work on something else.
Problem solved.
@10:37
The anti-assignment provisions of the social security act would make a lien, as well as any attempt to make SSA send checks directly to the attorney to be placed in trust, difficult. Assuming that is the proposal, and that could be done under the statutes, that would probably be an improvement.
@9:21
In regard to changing the fee approval process, these changes would require a change in statue as the Social Security Act which requires SSA to ensure the representative's fee is reasonable. Getting rid of the fee approval process would be directly contrary to this requirement. It's not within the power of the executive branch to re-write statute. That's why it is reasonable to assume these changes will not be carried out. Then again, the changes could be carried out, the Courts would then strike them down as inconsistent with the Social Security Act, POTUS would then complain the Courts are biased against him, the Courts will then uphold a fraction of a fraction of the changes, and POTUS will claim victory. That's another possibility.
This is to leave claimant's unrepresented, period. It's one of the Heritage Foundation's dirtiest dreams. Claimant's will be ducks on the shooting range.
Seems like a way to put more lawyers into money as it will make non atty reps unable to do the same lien process, eliminating many non atty reps from representing. This could have a major impact on the larger mill firms.
There have been several comments above from what are clearly SSD attorney "dabblers" as I call them who usually do just enough SSD work to be able to understand how a 1696, the fee agreement, and grid works but little else. Dabblers typically do not understand unless SSA has a reg in place then nothing happens. So, no dabblers there will not be a check to the claimant and attorney as if it's an ordinary PI case. This wasn't the case before attorney direct fee payment and has not been proposed/certainly will not be proposed in the future.
at 1:02pm It sounds like Nosscr and Nadr need to lobby for a proper lien/assignment change. However, I know that several larger firms like Allsup and other firms who handle large LTD ssa caseloads require the Claimant to assign their back benefits over to the LTD for repayment under their LTD policies. How are they getting around theanti-assignment provisions?
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0202410001 governs the anti assignment clause you mention. It appears that back benefits can be assigned. However, future or ongoing monthly payments cannot be. There are some exceptions to this and perhaps attorney/reps need to be added to these exceptions. Again, this is something we should require Nosscr and Nadr to lobby for.
As it stands now, I don't see any problem with Attorney/reps claiming liens/assignment on the back benefits. I am interested in hearing others thoughts on this as well.
@2:42 If large firms who handle LTD cases are doing assignments of back benefits why then would attorney and reps not be allowed to do this as well?
I read the poms that 2:44 posted and it does appear that back benefits can be assigned. The language regarding "future" benefits prevent other benefits from being assigned but not back benefits.
I do understand the consternation that anything that is going to be proposed will harm claimants and attorneys and reps to prevent representation allowing for the Administration to run ramshot over claimants. However, a lot (probably most) people at the Administration prefer the claimants to be represented as things are worked up and go smoother. It seems that this proposal (if the assignment/liens are indeed allowed) is merely to streamline things at the Administration and allow the free market to set and determine the prices. (no different than PI cases)
In regards to dabblers. I am no dabbler. But also, there are very good attorneys who handle both PI and disability claims. Disability is not rocket science. I do think the cap being lifted is a good thing. It will attract better reps/attorneys and the fees will actually reflect the risk that is being assumed by taking the cases on contingency. (Much like PI cases)
"Disability is not rocket science" first thing I have read here in a long time that is accurate.
Good. Needs to happen.
It was not very many years ago that Attorney Fees in cases involving only SSI were not withheld. I did not have problems getting paid. The client would receive a check for the past due benefits. My office staff, included my late wife. She would create a good relationship with the clients and would take them to our bank to cash the check. For many years we only had approximately four clients refuse to pay.
Later SSA changed the payment of past due SSI to installments. When that happened my system broke down. The clients would only call about the first installment. Some of them would pay the entire fee out of that installment. Most of them would pay 25% out of the first installment and nothing later. I eventually quit the straight SSI cases. A lot of other attorneys did the same thing. After a few years of many unrepresented SSI clients SSA changed and started withholding in SSI cases. I got back into SSI cases at that point.
@2:44
Whether LTD repayment agreements are legally enforceable is questionable, but I imagine even if the beneficiary were aware of the anti-assignment provisions they would be faced with the choices of either fighting the agreement and the LTD company seizing all future benefits, or follow the repayment agreement and the LTD company would pay future benefits (at least those in excess of the social security benefits, assuming there is an offset).
As to the POMS cite, yeah there are some exceptions (child support, taxes, etc.) but nothing like a repayment agreement. As to whether only "back benefits" are available for assignment, no, any future payment of benefits is protected from assignment.
Put simply, from SSA's perspective, all benefits go to the beneficiary, recipient, or representative payee (except where there is child support, alimony, tax levy, etc.) Most repayment agreements are made prior to the beneficiary receiving benefits from SSA. So that's an assignment of future payment of benefits.
Also, no offense intended, just to be clear, representative payee does not mean representative. Payees are individuals assigned/accepted by SSA to manage a disabled individual's money on their behalf if the disabled individual is found incapable of managing it themselves.
@3:18
As explained above, it is arguable whether assignments obtained in connection with an LTD are valid. But, even assuming they were, the Social Security Act sets for a range of rules which attorneys or reps seeking a fee for representation before the Administration.
Also, the POMS cite, consistent with the statute, does not say back benefits can be assigned, it says future payment of benefits cannot be assigned. As to whether my concern is that this could harm claimants, not entirely. Sure, I believe the protections are important, but setting that aside, if SSA stops withholding, even if they stop reviewing fees for reasonableness, I am doubtful SSA will actually send money directly to the attorney, even to hold in trust. That means attorneys will be faced with attempting to enforce fee agreements against clients which, while normal in most other areas of law, is not the current situation in Social Security, a particularly dangerous change since again, assignment of future benefits is not permitted.
I do not think Allsup and others are getting the clients to assign their benefits. The insurance companies have a hold on the clients because if the clients do not repay the Offset then the insurance company will stop the clients other benefits. The LTD policies usually pay more than the client's Social Security Benefits.
I used to handle many LTD cases through referrals from the large insurance companies. I made it clear to the clients and the insurance companies that I was representing the client and not the insurance companies. The insurance companies were pleased with my work and once told me that I had won 97% of their cases. That was not because of my brilliance, it was because the cases were well developed and easier then someone going to low cost medical clinics.
The insurance companies decided to cut costs and hired companies like Allsup. I believe that Allsup charges 2 or 3 months of benefits as opposed to 25%.
SSA's operation folks have wanted out of this for years. They have a dim view of the work that representatives do and don't like the idea of being a representative's debt collector.
It's about time for this to happen! SSA should NOT be the middleman to ensure representatives are paid their fees....PERIOD.
Under this proposal, and maybe I am reading it wrong, I can see Attorneys working cases under an hourly rate scenario.
I see being contacted by a lot of prospective clients, with weak cases, who I am not willing to take on contingency, but I would take if I could charge win or lose and allow me be paid at the time the work is done.
I know this will clog up the system even more then it is now.
However, I am taking so few Social Security Disability cases now, that it would keep me in the game.
If they do away with travel reimbursements, good luck getting representation if you live in a place outside of a major legal market that is serviced by a remote hearing site.
9:14 Please stop representing claimants. Saying things like an attorney should somehow get paid an hourly rate "win or lose" shows, well, you lack the ability to function in reality. I'm sure ALJs love dealing with you.
Just to comment on @7:21's comment: Early in my career (about 30 years ago), I also took SSI cases despite no fee withholding. I had a problem collecting my fee in perhaps 25% of the cases. It fell apart when the SSA employees at the local office (Hickory, NC) began telling successful claimants, (I paraphrase) "Why pay your attorney? He can't do anything because you're judgment-proof, and he won't be able to collect, even if he sues you."
Of course, no attorney is eager to sue a client, and by their nature, SSI claimants are "judgment proof." Then I, also, quit doing SSI cases until fee withholding was extended to SSI cases.
I also used to help claimants fill out paperwork for initial applications. Between interviewing the client for facts, obtaining medical records, and actual paperwork, my staff and I had at least 2-3 or more hours in a well-worked case. The SSA would authorize a fee of only $100. This was at a time when the attorney fee for a speeding case in this area was $150 and might be done with no more than 1/2-1 hour of work if the local DA did not make you wait to tender your client's plea.
2:39----why are you so against an Attorney being paid a fair amount to represent a claimant?
You must not be an Attorney.
I want to help claimants, but I want to be able to feed my family also.
In the 20 plus years I have done this type of law, I have done more work then other Attorneys for less money.
It is become that I am having to do other legal work instead of the disability cases which I enjoy doing and am good at.
All I want is fair compensation.
I never understood why disability cases cannot be handled the same way criminal cases are handled.
If you do not have enough money to pay a lawyer then a legal aid attorney is available.
If you want to hire a private attorney, then a flat fee or hourly fee should be agreed to.
A criminal defense attorney gets paid win or lose.
What is the difference?
I think the government should pay the full amount (25 %) instead of taking it from the claimants. Only if you win with no cap, no BS partially favorable, with a minimum of $1000. My reasons for this are to encourage higher payments at DDS for obvious cases. Also, make it much harder to deny at step 5. Adam Schiff's "proof" of Russian collusion is about as strong (as in, based in reality) as some of these "proofs" the claimants can "work."
@5:19 No you do not want fair compensation, you want more money for making a poor business choice. You have the right to fail, you do not have the right to make more for making a poor choice in business models.
I am not normally one to post especially to get I involved in tit for that comments but @9:23am clearly does not have a clue about what actually goes into running business nor the costs and risks involved. I suspect he or she also does not fully grasp how attorneys/reps help the claimants nor appreciate what would happen to people who become sick or injured and cannot work if they did not have the ability to hire representation.
If I were to wager, the person who made those comments is a low level government employee who is angry at life. The statistics regarding increased overall approval rates for people who have represented ration vs. People who do not speak for themselves.
I could not agree more.
Unless you are an Attorney representing Social Security Disability claimants---you should not comment on what you do not know.
Legal aid attorney? Really? They are so swamped in my area they can't function now. Cut out attorney's and add to the prison and homeless population in your area. This is the same crap that has been pulled in "Comp Reform" states. the cuts and roadblocks have extremely hampered legal representation and dumped these folks into other systems including SSA. SSA is picking up the bill for so called worker's compensation reform which is really just shifting the cost from private corporations to the federal government. If we could only ship these disabled people out of the country with the illegal alien Mexican/Muslim rapists, murderers, and "Bad Hombres" it would be the perfect solution. I'm sure someone in the administration is studying this possibility as we speak!
What is so tiresome about this administration is the constant use of the Big Spin and the Big Lie. So this is all about making SSA more efficient and could even increase legal representation huh? Bullbutter! The goal is to cut out the attornies and reps and leave a docile disabled population. The big goal is to limit the payouts and spending on the program and eventually either slash or privatize another safety net. This will create more desperate people in population which will magically rejoin the no benefit workforce, or be good fodder for the private prison system after they are homeless on the street. This administration would have no problem with disabled American citizen's living in cages under bridges in every major and minor city in America if they could only pull it off. This stuff is straight out of the Heritage Foundation wish list. They despise Social Security period! Let's be honest Trump Administration!
@5:22
Just to give you an idea of the Legal Aid situation for civil cases, in my state they actually track what they call the "justice gap." That tracks people who have a significant problem they need a lawyer to address, but who can't afford to pay a lawyer. Due to restricted funding and staff for Legal Aid, only about 1-2 out of five people in that situation get the legal help they need through pro bono or Legal Aid, and we are one of the better states for that. While there is private representation in Social Security Disability cases on contingency basis, there are many types of cases that the private bar simply cannot afford to regularly take and still keep their doors open. So Legal Aid is swamped with these already and, to borrow some SSA terminology, it only puts a mild to moderate dent in the problem.
Post a Comment