From Imani Barbarin, writing for Forbes:
A new policy proposal by the Trump Administration calls for the surveillance of disabled people’s social media profiles to determine the necessity of their disability benefits. The proposal, which reportedly aims to cut down on the number of fraudulent disability claims would monitor the profiles of disabled people and flag content that shows them doing physical activities. When it comes down to it, the policy dictates that disabled people shouldn’t be seen living their lives for fear of losing vital financial aid and, possibly, medical care. ...
The proposal, like many of its policies regarding disabled people, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of disability and takes advantage of how social media operates in order to cut them off from the support they need. Disabled people don’t all function in the same way and disability is not a set of stereotypes like taking selfies staring longingly at the world. They live lives while managing their energy for the activities they can handle and trying to make those they cannot more accessible. ...
The truth about disability is that it isn’t a series of down moments but both highs and lows that comprise their lives. Simply because disabled people are seen exercising, dancing or shooting hoops does not mean that they have the ability to sustain that level of energy all day. ...
ReplyDeleteAlmost reasonable to advise a client not to have an electronic social media presence. Restricting access isn't enough.
One remark in the past can be re-interpreted 10 years down the road and used to crucify you. Why bother having a personal electronic presence at all anymore?
This is just a lazy way to conduct CDRs. Saw this a lot in workers comp in California. They would hire PIs. Sometimes they caught fraud. Sometimes they just caught a claimant on a good day. It was all about optics.
ReplyDeleteI always tell my clients - Being disabled does not mean you can't do anything. I do this as sort of a pep talk. Disability is able to function around 40 hours per week, 5 days per week. Having a good moment on social media does not negate disability.
The only reason i use Facebook ect. Is for games 2 save them or to update people on snap and the uped cola other than that i do not post anything. I wish other people would just do the same.
ReplyDeleteSounds good to me. They can't begin to monitor the millions on disability but if there is some reason to question folks, it seems like a good tool to gather info.
ReplyDeleteSo how exactly do they look at your FB account? I have mine locked down so only "friends" can see anything. In my case what would they do?
ReplyDelete1) Request that I add them as a friend when there name is "Social Security"?
2) Pose as someone else?
3) Work with Facebook to bypass security?
4) Bypass security on their own (NSA, CIA, FBI)?
I know that plenty of people have everything up in the open, but if this strategy is to work, then your privacy will be violated, won't it?
Or do you give all that up, by having a benefit check which is really just an insurance payout that you paid into your entire life, without any opt-out.
11:38 hits it in the beginning of the post. If you decide to over share information, pictures and such then it could be used against you, like saying it to the ALJ. But if it is locked down to your friends all they will see is when you change profile photos, and those photos don't even have to be you!
ReplyDeleteI like getting upset about it, sure it is fun, but seriously, this is a mountain out of a mole hill.
Evidence must be evaluated without bias. The British newspapers periodically report people who receive disability benefits who, let's say, document their own abilities to be far greater than their alleged or former limitations. Some people on disability do get healthier because of changes in lifestyle, diet, medication, medical improvements, therapy, etc. Some people may exaggerate their conditions to become eligible for disability. Some may document their renewed abilities in a variety of ways and this new evidence must be considered and evaluated. Is the truth about disability not to allow for these possibilities? Is the truth about disability that once disabled, always disabled?
ReplyDelete@10:16
ReplyDeleteSnooping on facebook posts would be a debacle. SSA is already not equipped to evaluate activities of daily living (ADLS) in a manner that is relevant to the disability standard, and the proposal would make it worse.
With narrow exceptions, to be found not disabled SSA has to show that the claimant could do and sustain some full-time job existing in significant numbers in the economy (Social Security Ruling 96-8p). The key words are SUSTAIN and FULL-TIME. In other words it ultimately does not matter what disability claimants can do for just one hour, just one day, or even just one week. It matters what they can do consistently 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, which is something facebook posts are poor at revealing.
Many questions and check boxes on SSA ADL reporting forms don't query for how long or well the listed ADLs can be performed, or how often help is needed. At ALJ hearings, Judges almost never ask about the duration, frequency and how well the claimant can do particular ADLs. In other words, SSA's current practices for developing ADL evidence fails to develop information about the claimant's abilities to sustain activities in the time frame of a full-time work setting, which is the ultimate issue in most disability claims. The system is already broke regarding ADLs. Adding additional evidence easily capable of misinterpretation will only force adjudicators to even more wildly speculate about the meaning of ADL evidence that they don't have the time or resources to fully develop.
"With narrow exceptions, to be found not disabled SSA has to show that the claimant could do and sustain some full-time job existing in significant numbers in the economy"
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect. It's SSA's burden to show a significant number of jobs exist for someone in the national economy for an individual with a specific set of limitations if that individual cannot do their PRW. It is the individual's burden to show they cannot sustain FT, competitive employment.
The problem with ADLs isn't usually what a person can do for an hour, a day, or a week. It's what a person says they can't do. When people come in and say they can do certain activities for an hour, a day, or a week, great. That can help explain things. More often, though, an individual will come into the hearing and say they haven't ever been able to do something in the last 2-3 years when their records indicate otherwise. When asked about it, the answer is often I don't know where that came from or my doctors made it up. Then ADLs become a supportability issue on what the person says hey can't do rather than support for what they can do. I'm sure some judges use it for the latter, though.
You all are still missing the point that there is nothing there to show on FB if you don't post it or lock the profile to friends. Duh
ReplyDelete@8:22
ReplyDeleteI don't think you disagree with 1:17 on the law. In general the burden of proof is on the claimant, but the burden shifts to SSA at step 5 where "other work" is the issue. Ultimately, if SSA can only show part time or accommodated work available, or insignificant numbers of full-time jobs in a claim that went to step five, the claimant prevails. The rules are clear on that.
You mention that the problem is claimants saying they "can't" do something, then other evidence showing they can. I get that, it can go to credibility and legitimately so in some claims. I would suggest that it is much more nuanced than that in many claims.
What if the claimant has impaired memory from a mental disorder? What if at the time the claimant said they can't do something that was true, but their condition changed in the 2-3 years between when they filed a claim and when the hearing took place? Or vice-versa, they could do something when the claim was filed but by the time of the hearing their condition worsened and they could no longer do it? What if what they meant was they can't do an activity when a particular symptom is active, which is only part of the time, so the "can't" be counted on to do it on demand at work? What if the doctor medically advised them against doing an activity because it would make their condition worse, but necessity (usually extreme poverty) forced them to do it anyway on occasion, exacerbating their condition? People who look for inconsistencies without care for the reasons can miss a lot.
"People who look for inconsistencies without care for the reasons can miss a lot."
ReplyDeleteThose who overlook inconsistencies without care for the reasons can miss a lot too.