From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children.
The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews — the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January. ...
The new rule, advocates for low-income Americans say, is just a way to push people off the disability rolls.
“I have serious concerns about this proposed rule,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.), adding that it “appears to be yet another attempt by the Trump administration to make it more difficult for people with disabilities to receive benefits.” ...I don't trust the people behind this proposal at all. I'm sure their motivations are bad. They want to cut as many people off benefits as possible. However, they know that cutting a lot of people off benefits would be highly unpopular. Thus, they try to work around the edges. However, there's little they can do without legislative changes that won't happen. I don't think this proposal amounts to much.
18 comments:
The Inquirer's analysis of the proposed regulation is completely inaccurate.
The rule seems to be making the assumption that step five allowances are somehow a lesser form of disability by subjecting those cases to a higher level of review frequency. (Changing them to likely improvement category)
How is a 58 year old plumber with degenerative disc disease limited to light work and, therefore disabled at Step Five, "likely" to improve in any sense of the word.
My hunch is this will mostly affect those already on disability for CDRs. So a lot of those disabled will get kicked off for bogus technicalities. So a lot of them will have to refile.
The food stamps attack is kind of confusing. In 2019, the SSI clients got SSI and got to keep their food stamps for the first time ever. Not sure why this rule was instituted but it is a nice perk. This might go away. But it was instituted before the new commissioner Saul was confirmed so who knows. Saul is appointed for 7 years.
Where can I read this proposal of the Trump administration?
Sounds good to me. A lot of people will get kicked off and need lawyers to get back on. More cases for me! Thanks Donald!
I think this is awful. CDR's don't pay, so many of these claimants will be unrepresented. If they have to re-apply, we may be able to help them then, but they will have no medical coverage so we will have trouble getting our evidence to prove disability. This is picking on people who are already living on the margin. I
They seem to be advocating the position that such people can work. The fact that they can't find work or that no one will hire them due to their age, lack of education and training, lack of work experience, or that because they have had a disability employers are wary about hiring them, is not the concern of SSA or the government as a whole. That's their tough luck.
This morning I gave a two hour CLE class on Social Security Disability at my local county bar association. My introduction included how I got into Social Security Disability law. My start was in 1979. I represented a number of clients in Federal Court to contest Cessation of benefits started first by the Carter Administration and then continued by the Reagan Administration. In all of those cases, the claimant were not afforded a hearing. I won a number of cases in Federal Court. I argued the Medical Improvement Standard. I won that issue at the Circuit Court of Appeals. There were several other attorneys in other circuits who won with that issue. Shortly afterwards Congress changed the law so that claimants were entitled to a hearing before benefits can be terminated. Clients can receive benefits through a decision of an ALJ. One of the posters stated that he will get more clients. That is true, the question is how will he or she get paid to represent the case at the hearing level if the client is receiving benefits?
@10:49
People on disability already, can't afford representation unless it's pro bono. I know of one firm in in the Pacific Northwest that would take a case for free, AND travel to other states in which they are licensed to practice. Don't plan on too big of an influx, unless you do it pro bono, with no back benefits to be paid (probably). Up to working for free?
They are not going to be giving two year o re-exams to 55 year olds. With few exceptions these are already MINE cases and per the proposal that will not change. That said the proposal is totally unnecessary. We are already able to give two year medical re-exams if warranted. In fact, in one of the examples cited in the proposal it is already mandated...the extremely premature ...e.g. 700 grams or some such. Also is there a lawyerly distinction red the difference between expected and likely..? The proposal points out that waivers will be given because states do not have the personnel to do the ones that are assigned now.. Currently I am doing CDRs for which the diary dates were years ago and in at least one decades.
Effectively, it will not make any difference to anyone. I am reviewed every 3 years, and if it dropped to every 2, why would I care? It does not change my health or issues.
Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/18/2019-24700/rules-regarding-the-frequency-and-notice-of-continuing-disability-reviews
Interesting and little known book about Reagan Era slaughter of the innocents called No Longer Disabled by Susan Glock Mezey. Other than screwing with disabled people the Reagan Era hi jinxs accomplished very little as far as identifying miracle recoveries and such. I believe most people targeted got back on. NOSSCR should start renting Trump venues for galas.
This only applies to DDS, though, right? ALJs continue to set their own review dates, and 1-2 year reviews have long been an attractive tool, especially for workers' comp claimants in their 30s.
So, please tell me, this proposal won't become law or policy unless it is voted on by both the house and senate?
12:03, ALJs think they set their own review dates. They can say in their decisions that they think the claimant should be reviewed every 2 months or 2 years or 20 years. But it's the field office that puts the CDR diary in when they effectuate the decision and they could care less what the ALJ thought. They have a limited menu of options to choose from: basically low birth weight, MIE, MIL, and MINE. It's like rep payees--the ALJ can say he thinks the claimant needs one, but the field office decides.
I don't think all ALJs even realize this.
1:44AM, no--this is a regulation. SSA can decide to do it on their own. It doesn't require Congress to change the law.
I'm confused. Top paragraph someone says doesn't think amounts to much since he doesn't think both party's would agree to legislatively. Who is saying that? The blog author? Then the last comment says is regulation so Congress not needed. Who dedides if I'm homeless or not????
Post a Comment