From a press release:
Timothy Cole is being treated for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. His treatment leaves him immunocompromised and unable to work, and places him at additional risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. He needs to apply for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the safest way to do so would be to fill out the application online at his home in Jacksonville, Florida. Because he is immunocompromised, leaving his home or interacting with paper mail is dangerous for Mr. Cole. But since he plans to hire an attorney to help with the complex application process, he cannot submit his application online because applicants using authorized representatives, like attorneys, must sign a paper copy of their application. This is true even though SSA has an online application and electronic signatures are accessible, secure, and federally approved.
Mr. Cole and three other plaintiffs, along with the National Federation of the Blind, are suing the Social Security Administration in federal court. They seek a court order requiring SSA to allow e-signatures on applications rather than requiring a "wet-ink" signature when the applicant is using an attorney or other authorized representative. SSA does not require wet-ink signatures for applications for some benefits when an authorized representative is not being used by the applicant. The suit contends that the requirement has always been discriminatory, but during the COVID-19 pandemic it also endangers the health and even the lives of applicants, as even SSA has recognized in quarantining its own mail for two days and shutting down its field offices. ...
I hope he is successful, because that is a stupid rule at this time. However, if he has a rep, is there some reason the rep does not take or mail an app to him for his signature? He has to sign the 1696 and the fee agreement also, so why not sign the application at the same time?
ReplyDeleteIt's about time someone did this. I thought about. SSA is in violation of 2 federal statutes in refusing to accept electronic signatures. I complained to the regional office of general counsel citing the statutes. The response I received simply repeated their policy while failing to even mention the statutes. And, they threatened me with sanctions if I didn't fall in line. So, the agency's attorney not only has failed to advise the agency it must follow the law but threatens those who point out that they are refusing to follow the law. Seems to me those attorneys have some ethical problems. It is really appalling that a government agency has such arrogance that it thinks its above the law and then can threaten those who point out the law. That, folks, is tyranny. The general counsel should be fire and disbarred for being complicit in this behavior.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why he would be unable to interact with paper mail. The mail could be picked up with gloves on and left inside unopened for a few days, which would kill any virus or other germs on it.
ReplyDelete@841 Tyranny, yes that!
ReplyDeleteIn another forum someone stated that we are turning into a society where the rule of men is overshadowing the rule of law. Yes that too.
SSA is but one example.
That's all I will say, don't want to be reactionary and risk getting censored by Charles for whom I have the greatest respect!
@11:01
ReplyDeleteGiven the wet-signature rule has been in place for decades, that kind of cuts against your argument that our society is becoming tyrannical.
If anything, the imposition of the wet-signature rule is an example of anti-tyranny, with people being bound by outdated laws. Shouldn't you be supporting SSA in this scenario? Not that I do. It's a dumb rule and should have been abrogated years ago.
@ 11:01, An arrogant government agency that thinks it is above the law and seeks to punish someone who challenges them on their refusal to comply is tyranny. This agency believes it is free to ignore the law and knows that it won't be held accountable. When the citizens have no way to hold the government accountable, may or may not be tyranny, but it certainly is a problem.
ReplyDeleteWe are so fortunate to live in a country in which tyranny is defined as a government requiring a signature on an application. I wonder what our ancestors would have thought of our soft tyranny. Wonder if we ran this version of tyranny past citizens of cuba or north korea, what they would say.
ReplyDeleteAnd, @9:39 - yes, he could get gloves. He could sterilize the mail. But why place the burden on the infirm, when SSA is being unreasonable? Most other agencies and businesses accept e-signatures. Get with the time.
So, 9:39, you are okay with a government agency ignoring the law as long as you think it is only a trivial requirement? What other laws do you think it is okay for the SSA to ignore?
ReplyDeleteThe earlier inhabitants of this country thought excessive taxes on tea was tyranny. They also thought the prohibition against accumulating arms for the use by a militia against the government was tyranny. So, maybe you do have a point, tyranny was defined differently in those day.
Its not the triviality of the issue (which is a matter of opinion, btw), its the fact the agency thinks it is above the law and can punish those who call it on its arrogance and lawlessness combined with the inability of the average citizen to fight them that makes it tyranny.
It's even more maddening than the lawsuit says. After the rep files electronically -- which SSA pretty much requires us all to do -- the agency MAILS a printed summary and requires another wet signature on the iClaim form. That adds more time for those to get out and come back, and confuses many claimants. And the rep is trying to monitor these to see that they are returned.
ReplyDeleteGood point,1:00. It sometimes seems as if the agency is purposely making things as difficult as possible to discourage applicants, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt's not difficult to file online.....THEN get a rep. But still need to sign 1696/fee agreement forms...seems to be nitpicking. Can you imagine the fraud if re-signing were allowed. SMH
ReplyDelete11:01/12:03 must work for the agency. He is doing the same thing the agency does - ignoring the fact that the law requires the agency to accept electronic signatures.
ReplyDelete1125 if you think my comments were just in regard to the wet signature issue, then there is not much I can say except to go back and read 841s post.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is much more egregious forms of tyranny in other countries but it starts somewhere. Think it can't happen here, think again.
@1:31
ReplyDeleteAfter reading 8:41's post, fair enough. I misunderstood your point.
As to whether there are more egregious forms of tyranny in other countries, sure. As to whether I think it can't happen here, I have no doubt it could. My point is, in comparison to historical norms, it is not.
What exactly does an attorney do at the initial level? The process has been completed by the public since the inception and even the most challenged individuals manage the initial application. The agency does the work at the initial level and attorneys are getting paid for minimal work.
ReplyDeleteI wish the agency got out of the attorney fee business. Put in regulations to make sure attorneys get paid - attorney liens or two names on a check.
One of the problems is that some of the hospitals/clinics refused to accept electronic signatures on the 827 especially when it comes to mental health records.
ReplyDeleteI'm 12:03. No I dont work for the agency. i represent claimants. My point was clear. I am all for SSA accepting e-signatures. Its a reasonably and obvious accomodation, and there is an argument that the law requires them to. My point was that it is a ridiculous stretch to call this tyranny.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone else noticed that the drop down for the fee agreement has disappeared when you file a RFR online?
ReplyDelete