Social Security has added a new section to its POMS manual on representation of claimants. I'm not sure how much is new. Here are a few things I noticed on a quick read through:
... [A]n appointed representative may not:
An appointed representative cannot delegate to an associate the performance of tasks that require taking legally significant actions about the claimant's case such as:
- sign an application on behalf of the claimant. ...
A claimant must sign a written notice of appointment.
- appearing at a hearing and presenting the claimant's case in proceedings before us ...
The claimant's signature must be in ink. We do not accept signatures generated from electronic software programs (e.g., DocuSign or HelloSign) or rubber-stamped signatures from claimants on written notices of appointment. [Problematic at this time]
Return a notice of appointment if the claimant's signature is electronic. ...
The following individuals cannot appoint or revoke a representative on behalf of a claimant:
the representative payee ...
If a claimant dies before we complete action in a pending claim, matter, or issue, the representative's appointment continues until it is ended by one of the events listed in GN 03910.060B.
7 comments:
It amazes me that SSA continues to believe the law regarding the use of electronic signatures does not apply to the agency. Of course, it should come as no surprise, I guess, that any government bureaucracy deems itself to be above the law.
Is there any logic in not allowing representatives to change a claimant's address? Shall we remain silent as information continues to go to an address where they received mail three moves ago?
Just another attempt from the SSA to make repping claimants harder. But most ALJs appreciate reps getting medical records in before the hearing. A good ALJ works with the rep not against them.
The only thing I've heard about the new attorney procedure is that SSA-1695 and SSA-1696 will be combined in one form.
This would make my job much easier,. All too often there is more than 1 attorney listed on the SSA-1696 but then there is only one attorney who submitted SSA1695 and registered.
We are required to divide the fee between the reps listed on the SSA1696,
I often have to call for a SSA1695 to be faxed to me for the extra attorney(s) listed on the SSA1696. If no SSA1695 is submitted for the extra rep,, we have to release his portion of the fee to the wage earner.
Combing the fee agreement and appointment of rep is so logical and probably been submitted at least dozens of times by employees as a suggestion.
@ 8:01PM The new 1696 form (which now replaces needing to submit a 1695) requires use to now submit a form for each attorney in the firm. You will still need to divide the fee in this situation. We have 2 attorneys in our office. SO instead of submitting 1 page, I must now submit 8 pages. Not sure this makes the situation any better. All it does is eliminate the reps SSN on the 1695 form. Other than that, I have yet to determine what the new form serves to improve.
In our state, we must provide a copy of the 1696 to a medical provider to prove our relationship to the claimant along with other documentation of a pending claim in order to receive the records without charge. My medical requests have gone from 4 page documents to 7 pages now, which will increase our mailing costs in the situations where the requests must be mailed and not emailed or faxed.
anon@9:37am,
Why bother to submit suggestions on it? Just do it. I don't know if you are aware, but the 1696 isn't a mandatory form - the agency doesn't require you to use it (and that is actually made clear in the POMS) if you don't want to. You can easily write up a fee agreement that meets all the requirements to appoint a rep.
In fact, many reps in multi-rep firms have made a major blunder with their fee agreements without thinking about it that would often cause problems with payment of their fees if the agency was paying attention to it. They submit a signed SSA-1696 for one representative X while submitting a fee agreement signed by reps X, Y, and Z even though Y and Z aren't involved at this time to prevent needing to submit a new agreement in the future if the other reps become involved.
Thing is, many of those multi-rep fee agreements also contain an appointment statement saying that reps X, Y, and Z are representing the claimant. Technically, since the claimant and the reps signed it, it also constitutes a valid appointment of representative. That being the case, at approval the fee needs to be split equally among all three reps unless the other reps withdraw and waive their fees (which can cause major issues when reps play magical chairs entering and leaving associations with multiple firms).
TLDR, do it but be careful how you write up the language to not cause problems with your fees in the future.
Post a Comment