My firm has gotten two or three decisions supposedly issued by Social Security on December 25, 2019. I'd call that a dead giveaway that the dates that the agency puts on decisions are at best an approximation of the date they're actually mailed. I don't think anyone but a few security guards and computer people were working at Social Security that day and no one could have mailed a decision because the mail doesn't run on Christmas day.
I think this has to do with centralized printing and mailing. My guess is that the people actually making the decisions just put artificial dates on them assuming they'll be printed and mailed within, let's say, three days after they're ready to go out. Maybe the system does this automatically. Sometimes the printing and mailing people get it out on that date. Sometimes they get it out earlier; sometimes later. Who cares? Claimants have a fixed length of time to file appeals based upon when a decision is mailed. When it comes to appeal rights Social Security takes the dates on its decisions quite literally when it shouldn't
Why is it that centralized printing and mailing is a good thing anyway?
16 comments:
I believe they put a date 5 days in the future on ALJ decisions. They do similar if not the same for award letters.
It's in the claimant's advantage that SSA does this so rather than when the ALJ or the computer approved the claim, the claimant gets a letter/decision that has a date bearing the probable date that it will be mailed. Even so, claimants have 60 plus 5 mail days to file appeal.
While it is complete nonsense, no, the appeal is not a fixed length of time to when the decision is mailed. It is within sixty days of receipt, and SSA assumes the claimant will receive the decision within 5 days of it being issued under HALLEX I-2-0-40. So in effect, it is within 65 days of the decision being issued.
Logically, receipt assumes the Administration actually mails it out, but I'm aware of caselaw which holds the Administration doesn't even have to affirm that fact to win a dismissal for untimeliness...which is horrifying.
With centralized printing, they add 5 days to the date of the decision from the date on which they are sending out the decision. So if a decision was processed on December 20th, the decision date may show Dec 25th even if it is a holiday.
Of course they weren't mailing decisions on Christmas day. And of course claimants are given a fixed length of time to appeal decisions. Every agency and tribunal in the country does. If you can't handle that without complaining, the I'd say this whole attorney thing probably isn't a good fit.
Also, from my perspective, its awfully hard to see how post-dating the decisions (which artificially inflates the claimant's appeal window) is a disadvantage. Sure, sometimes a claimant doesn't actually receive the decision until after the date written on the decision. But that possibility is fully accommodated by the regulations. If you get the decision late, and it's not your fault or your client's fault, then demonstrate that. In my experience, the agency will usually accept a claimant's/representatives word on the issue without question, even when there's ample evidence demonstrating that the claimant/representative is lying about when they received the decision.
In short, take off the tinfoil hats and put down the violins.
It's automatic. UF decisions get dated 5 days after they are sent to central printing. Wouldn't be surprised if you get some before the date shown. This actually gives the claimant 65 days (instead of the statutory 60) to appeal.
It's called automation and it increases efficiency, Boomer. If you want agency employees screwing around with letters and stamps all day and mislabeling envelopes instead of developing and organizing cases then just say it. Most younger employees have never licked an envelope. Also tell the other old people you work with never send me a fax ever again.
I'm sorry that sounded mean. I appreciate your work and everything that your generation did for us. Except for starting that war in the Middle East I fought in, and that other war in the Middle East I fought in, and the current state of American Politics. And, where was I going with this...
Enjoy your remaining years, love a Millennial.
I routinely see decisions in the electronic file dated and signed with an issuance date several days into the future.
1201, OK Boomer (and proud of it) here when are you going to take responsibility for your actions or lack there of. What are you going to do when you don't have cranky old Boomer to slap around? You all want our money, our houses and our jobs. Boohoo, grow up.
Automation has a lot of good points but it is not the end all be all. I bet you don't know how to read a map, type a letter or even mail one if you did lick a stamp. A landline would cause you apoplectic fits. In case you haven't noticed, your electronic nirvana is subject to serious attack. If the internet ever goes down you will sit there and cry. I, on the other hand, could live off grid with ease and thrive. You should be nice to your Boomers because someday you will need them.
Now be a good little Millenial and clean your room.
OK all, let's be adults now. I think everyone can agree that the automation and dating in the future is a positive. However, maybe the system shouldn't date denial notices on Christmas day. One of my clients got a denial dated on Christmas Eve, which seemed unnecessarily cruel. Even though you can't work, we're not going to pay you - Merry Christmas! Back when I worked in a couple different DDSs, we never mailed denial notices the week before Christmas.
This is nothing new, we do it on all letters and notices to the public for as long as I can remember. It allows time for printing and mailing so as to not disadvantage anyone.
@10:35
If the Administration actually followed the statutory language (i.e. date of receipt) no "disadvantage" would occur due to the Administration's presumption of receipt and no false adjustment of the issuance date would be even relevant.
ALJs have zero control over dates. When a decision is e-signed it is undated. It goes to a staff member for finalizing (list of exhibits, etc) and then goes off to Central Print. I make it a habit to not sign any UFs after December 15 because a denial is hard enough but a denial dated on Jesus's birthday is a mortal sin.
@10:22 AM
The agency does "follow the statutory language," and in fact goes above and beyond its obligations in most cases, routinely accepting even fairly laughable claims of late receipt without any corroborating evidence. However, the "statutory language" does not require the agency to believe liars who claim they received notice of their decision four to six weeks after it was mailed. Nor does the "statutory language" require the agency to divine the new addresses of claimants who negligently fail to comply with their statutory obligation to keep the agency informed of any changes to their mailing address.
@8:48
The agency choosing to relieve claimants of a burden they don't have is irrelevant. The statute says within 60 days of receipt, not within 60 days of issuance, not within 60 days of issuance plus 5 for mailing. This isn't a hard concept. Just send out decisions via certified mail. Literally that's all it would take. In 2017 there were 2,258,949 decisions across all levels of adjudication. Multiple that by the cost of certified mail, $3.35, that's $7.5 million. Not much in the greater scheme of things and I'm sure the agency could recoup a great deal of that loss by actually having a legally sufficient showing to argue actual receipt. Maybe the agency could actually even turn a profit on it.
As to divining new addresses for claimants who fail to comply with their "statutory" obligation to keep the agency informed of their mailing address; 1, I believe that is a regulatory obligation, although not an unreasonable one. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is an irrelevant point. 2, have the field office call the claimant to come in and pick up the decision. 3, assuming the individual also didn't keep any of their contact information up to date, the language still only requires an individual appeal within 60 days of receipt. If the agency can't actually accomplish that goal, that's unfortunate. In that circumstance, I believe under the statute the appropriate appeal period would still be 60 days upon receipt of the decision, even if that is after many months of the decision being issued as that is the language of the statute. If your suspicion is that claimants will hide from social security just to extend an appeal period, no. Most claimants actually want to know as soon as possible as they are applying for benefits, meaning they are interested in the outcome of any decisions by social security.
@11:32 AM
"Multiply that by the cost of certified mail, $3.35, that's $7.5 million. Not much in the greater scheme of things."
That's a nearly 10-fold increase in the cost, which Congress would have to fund. And if you think requiring the agency to use certified mail will put a stop to the shenanigans claimants play with regard to deadlines, you're kidding yourself, and ought to take a look at just how much bull**** still gets piled on courts and other agencies despite similar requirements.
@12:01
It won't prevent claimant "shenanigans," but it would provide the agency a leg to stand on. Alternatively, demand claimant's come into a field office to get their decision. As to the burden of spending an extra $6.75 million (you said it's a 10-fold increase in costs, so I'm reducing the amount by 10%), record the date they come in as the date of receipt. That's an even better, cheaper solution.
Post a Comment