05/20/19--Faxed rep pw [representative paperwork, that is the paperwork showing that the client has authorized me to represent him] to DO [District Office].There's nothing unusual about this other than them saying they have the 1695 but not the 1696. I could copy the same sort of thing from the database on many other clients. This happens all the time. We waste a ton of time repeatedly sending paperwork to Social Security showing that I'm representing a particular client.
06/17/19--Recv'd 1695 [the form I send so that Social Security knows where to pay any fee the case generates] confirmation from DO.
06/20/19--TC DDS [Telephone call Disability Determination Services] and they don't have the 1696 [the form needed so that Social Security knows I'm representing the client].
07/02/19--TC DDS and they still don't have the 1696. Faxed it to DO asking they make it available to DDS.
07/16/19--TC DDS and the 1696 isn't there. Faxed pw again to DO.
07/19/19--TC DDS and the 1696 isn't there. Faxed pw again to DO.
07/24/19--TC DDS and no 1696. TC Raleigh DO and was told they have the 1695 but nothing else!!! REALLY??!! Faxed and mailed hard copy.
07/26/19--Faxed copy of pw to DO.
I'm not blaming the DOs too much. They're overworked and stressed out. They prioritize. They can't get all their work done but it keeps getting harder to deal with the agency.
How well do you think unrepresented claimants are able to deal with an agency that offers such poor service?
28 comments:
An unrepresented Claimant wouldn't have a problem with a 1695 because there is no rep. ;)
Much of this could be eliminated if SSA would simply modify the ERE so that reps can use the electronic folder at the initial determination level. I'm not sure why it has to be a hearing level only service, but imagine how much easier DDS and the field office's jobs would be if reps were able to electronically submit records and other forms needed by DDS and SSA for the initial apps.
Granted, that wouldn't address the 1695 and 1696 issues since you would have to be added as rep to get access to the ERE to begin with, but perhaps eliminating some of the other work and mailings would free up workers to add reps to files quicker and more accurately.
Agree wholehearedly about ERE access. This agency is still in the dark ages when it comes to IT. While I'm not crazy about the agencies ideas about centralizing hearing operations, these functions like processing paperwork should be centralized. Instead of being handled in the various local offices where staff have multiple other responsibilities, there should be a central repository, possibly on a regional basis, that does nothing but process this sort of paperwork. It would be much more efficient. But, if you start taking tasks out of the local offices, congressmen will start hollering about taking jobs out of districts.
There are technical challenges with granting efolder access at the initial and reconsideration. Until those issues are addressed, it would not be possible to expand beyond the hearings and appeals levels.
Why not ask for a barcode and use ERE to upload the document or fax it into the efolder?
@9:29
We suggested that at a meeting between regional office, the reps, OIG attorneys, and even a few district judges. Having the ERE system beginning at initial and continuing through the AC would simplify things a great deal. Regional said it would be great, but the state agencies all use different systems, so they couldn't unify the ERE system...which is sortof like saying "we can't make the system make sense, since it doesn't make sense."
@10:25
Just promise not to cut any jobs. The newly available local office worker time could go to faster wait times. If anyone would object, I imagine it could be the post office.
If you would like to have a higher appreciation for SSA staff, try helping a few clients with their food stamp or TANF problems. I think you'll find that SSA for all its problems is vastly more efficient and has a much better attitude.
Stop faxing. Scan the document and e-mail it.
DO NOT email. It contains PII. Please do not pay attention to 12.21pm.
10:55, you can't use ERE to upload a 1696 because:
* at the initial or recon level there's no ERE
* at the hearing or AC level there is ERE, but reps can't get access to it for a given client until the 1696 has been processed.
Same with faxing to the efile with a barcode--SSA won't give someone a barcode until they know they're the rep...and they know they're the rep by receiving and processing the 1696.
12:21
Can't email because they won't tell you their email. Yes, I often know it because they use a fairly standard initial last name@sea.gov in most, but not all cases, but I am frequently told not to use it.
I don't know why.
The authorized rep forms are entered in one system but then must be imported into as many as three other systems. Miss pulling it into one of those other systems and, in the least, employees do not see that there is an authorized rep. At worst, the authorized rep fee is not paid.
I must assume that you became the representative at a point in time where you were not filing an appeal, otherwise the 1696 and 1695 could be attached to the appeal online.
The scenario you describe is precisely why we tell our clients, and include it in our engagement letter, that they need to contact us whenever they receive any paperwork from SSA as SSA will sometimes fail to send us a copy. In the situation you documented, you won't get the decision notice from SSA unless they process the 1696.
One could argue that SSA is interfering with the claimant's right to representation by failing to reasonably process the rep documents. That and $2.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks however.
Asking for a barcode when SSA doesn’t process rep paperwork for weeks or months would not solve the problem. It would just be another thing that was mishandled.
Why can reps no longer upload documents on an application? That would solve much of this problem.
Oh, I feel your pain. Just trying to resolve this now that claim is paid. In my case, I have POD of 1696 and FA. AND, DDS had no issue dealing w/ me whatsoever. In reviewing the DDE, some boxes list me as rep, others don't. AND....this solves the problem of why I couldn't use ERE!!!! God help us, God help SSA!!!
Probably these are clients you signed up after the claimant filed the initial paperwork. I have seen this as a problem at the DDS level especially if there was a prior attorney. If our firm was on the case from Day 1, this is not a problem.
Just wondering how much this is a hassle. Presumably most of your cases are won at the hearing level and settled up after the ALJ decision. At the DDS level, only see the main problems as correspondence and submitting medical records. At the hearing level, I would hope OHO could connect with you eventually to schedule the hearing.
Hope this works itself out. But I am not hopeful.
The problem here is that you are not allowing the 1696 submissions to properly age. This entire process that you set forth here lasted a little over a month. With multiple attemtps to elicit your desired a response.
You are probably having the same individual ingore your request over and over again in the span of days. It probably feels like a jackhammer to the poor bureaucrat. You need to wait and allow the natural bureacratic process to shift so that a new individual handles the second request for action.
I generally allow my 1696/1695 submissions to age at least a month before my second attempt to garner a processing response.
Often, I find that a second submission after two or three months works best.
The 1696/1695 processing sysem is organic. It has a life of it's own and happens in its own time. You are clearly trying to force a natural bureaucratic procecss. You have to age them properly.
The key is to allow the second (or third) sumbission to garner the novelty response. If they remember seeing the first submission, you will not trigger this response. You have to allow the second submission to be a suprise. Something new!
I generally puncuate my second (or third) submission with large lettering in a black marker. This creates the flourish that tells the burauracy that this is something new! Something exciting! Something they have not seen before!
And I leave the original date on my subsuquent submission. This creates psychological dissonance. A May date? In late July? How can this be? What is this? You can circle the original date to draw the attention of the eye.
By creating novelty in this matter, you encourage the entry of your 1696 (or 1695, as the case may be) into the electronic system in a much more organic way such that you are working with, and not against, the natural bureaucratic process.
This is more akin to winemaking or aging a fine cheese.
I don't doubt service sucks sometimes but on the other hand I have received 4-5 sets of atty forms for the same claimant just a day or two apart. Yes, the first one was processed but I don't recall that it was so have to check to make sure it was sent to all systems and scanned in properly. It probably is more poor service than not but sometimes it is stacks of duplicate documents that have to be checked because one can't be sure they have been processed or not.
That much contact again and again and again and not waiting for things to process is really a-hole behavior, like a bratty kid.
Our local office receives between 200-400 faxes a day. It takes someone to go through those and route the paperwork to the appropriate CS. Faxing duplicated paperwork that close together is not efficient for either party. Unless you are working with a small 10 person office, there is no way it's being processed in 3 days, but goodluck.
10:48 thank you for your comparison of dealing with SSA to winemaking/fine cheese. I knew I was missing something... I am sure if I explain the Social Security process to my clients that way -- that it is necessary for their files to "age" before they receive response/hearing etc -- they will all appreciate the robust flavor of their fully favorable decision and payment 3 years after they intially applied SO much more and will not bug me as to when we will hear on their case. ;-)
10:48, it's fine to wait a few weeks if the claimant's just requested a hearing and you know it's months away and you're busy gathering records.
But what if it's a TERI or suicidal/homicidal case? What if it's at the recon stage and you know DDS is sending it to the medical consultant without all the evidence? what if the hearing is in 2 weeks and you can't see the file and the judge is not going to be sympathetic when your brief is late?
If it's going to take FOs a month to process 1696s then
a) SSA should say that and
b) SSA should automate it so it doesn't take a month.
I have had to send these docs certified mail, just eat the cost.
There's a simple solution. In the distant past like say 1980 or so we could mail them to the DDS until some genius decided that the 1696 had to be handled by a SSA employee. Of course it's ok for the DDS to handle confidential health info but they can't handle 1696's? Allowing the DDS to process might actually make Recon more meaningful but we can't have that, can we?
Adding a 1696 to a case makes Recon more meaningful? WTF are you talking about?
As far as 1696's and fee agreements are concerned, when a case has reached the hearing level you should be able to fax, mail or ERE your forms to the hearing office, but PLEASE do not do all three, as this just creates duplicate/triplicate work, and delays processing on other cases.
1695's should not EVER be sent to the hearing offices, we do not process them, we fax them right back to the FO.
Everyone knows the timelines it takes for hearings to be scheduled with their local offices. If you, as a rep are on a case, and you have not received correspondence, call the hearing office to check if you are listed on the case. As long as we have your 1696 and fee agreement (if applicable) we can add you onto the case immediately.
12:07, adding representation to the case can make recon more meaningful because the rep can submit evidence, help the claimant fill out and submit paperwork, get medical source statements or letters from former employers, call up the DDS staff and say "look at the blood pressure readings on pages 34, 59, and 184--my client meets a listing" or "that disease you never heard of? It's a CAL condition," etc. etc.
The 1696 isn't what makes recon meaningful. But it's how you as a rep get to play a role in the case, and *that* can be meaningful.
Or completely useless.
The "handling" of the 1696 involves ensuring that the rep is in good standing with SSA, permitted to represent claimants on SSI and Disability matters, and entering rep information into parts of the system (for payment purposes if the claim is allowed) that DDSs don't use and can't access. As such, processing rep paperwork is a job for SSA, not for state DDSs. Many DDSs are already understaffed and flooded with initial claims, recons, and CDRs. Placing the burden of rep paperwork processing on DDSs doesn't make sense, especially as the claim moves through the recon process and could be farmed out to a different state DDS or an FDU for workload management purposes. All that being said, if you're having trouble getting the field office to put the 1696 in the electronic folder, why not request a barcode from DDS and fax the 1696 in?
Post a Comment