From a press release:
The House Appropriations Committee today released the draft fiscal year 2021 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) funding bill, which will be considered in subcommittee tomorrow. The legislation includes funding for programs within the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and other related agencies, including the Social Security Administration. ...
$13 billion for the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) operating expenses, with an increase of $100 million above the FY 2020 enacted level to hire additional staff at field offices, teleservice and processing centers and improve public services. ...
- Continuing Disability Reviews—The bill includes a new provision prohibiting the Social Security Administration from finalizing or implementing a new rule that would significantly increase the number and frequency of CDRs, cutting benefits to Social Security and SSI disabled beneficiaries.
- Administrative Law Judges—The bill includes a new provision prohibiting the Social Security Administration from finalizing or implementing a proposed rule that would replace an individual’s right to appeal their denied application for Social Security or SSI benefits before an independent Administrative Law Judges at a hearing, with an appeal before an SSA staff attorney.
Note that $100 million is less than 1% of the budget. Even in a time of recession, this may not be enough to cover inflation. I don't this this would lead to any new hiring.
It seems cruel to subject those that suffer severe health issues to continuing disability reviews during a pandemic.
ReplyDeleteif this passes it will effectively end the AC as it currently exists. you wouldn't need AAJs or AOs if trained staff attorneys can make the ultimate call on appeals. if i were an ALJ i'd be somewhat pissed that it would only take a staff attorney to overturn my decision. say what you will but adjudicators at the AC play a role just as adjudicators at every other level play a role.
ReplyDeletewell if it all comes to pass they could send the AC adjudicators to the hearing offices meaning no need for ALJ hiring for a few years.
@4:18
ReplyDeleteLast I checked, CDRs were placed on hold during the pandemic.
4:18. No one is being ceased
ReplyDelete@6:07. That’s the system now. The appeal they are talking about is from DDS decision to an ALJ. ALJ decisions can be overturned by two agency lawyers (AAJs) that lack any of the decisions independence of ALJs. What that says is that ALJs can’t be replaced with an agency lawyer that just happens to have AAJ as their title.
ReplyDelete9:21 bravo. The AC are staff attorneys, that's all they are, the AAJ position description is "Attorney Examiner", and AAJ is a mere vanity title. Whereas the ALJ position description really does have the word "judge" in the title and stresses the need for judicial competency. The proposed reg ignored that fact.
ReplyDeleteCDRS were initially suspended but have resumed.
ReplyDeleteCDRs have NOT resumed if the result would be adverse to the claimant..
ReplyDelete"if i were an ALJ i'd be somewhat pissed that it would only take a staff attorney to overturn my decision."
ReplyDeleteAs others have noted, this is what's currently happening. If they were any good at reviewing cases or showed even a basic competence level, I'd be less pissed. It's when the AC makes a clear error in their "analysis" that we can't address with a simple "You sure about that, Clark?" that it gets annoying.
Examples: the ALJ failed to address opinion X in 24F when it's clearly a duplicate of 8F that was addressed. The ALJ said the claimant is capable of PRW after limiting her to light work, but the PRW is medium when the decision very clearly explains that the PRW (non-composite) was actually performed at the light level per WH report and testimony. The ALJ failed to inform the claimant of the right to postpone for representation at the second hearing when it was clearly explained at the first hearing.
They make a ton of horrific mistakes, and this doesn't even address immaterial "errors" like failing to address possible SGA in a step 5 denial, citing the wrong grid rule in a 35yo's case where the correct grid rule still resulted in non-disability, etc.
And it definitely works the other way, as well, where cases that should be remanded are often denied review. I know of a case where every workup failed to yield a diagnosis that could cause any of the debilitating symptoms. I added to the decision that any diagnosis received after the date of the decision that could cause the symptoms would be new and material and would warrant a remand or a reopening of the decision with a subsequent application. Apparently a new diagnosis was made as the appeal was pending with the rep citing the decision and seeking remand. The AC denied review.
And if you want to see real magic, read their reversals.
Not sure how you conduct a cdr an avoid an adverse result for a claimant? Cdr mailers have resumed and full medical cdrs have resumed. The results are known once the cdr is completed, and those results can result in termination of benefits.
ReplyDeletewe are not allowed to process cessations. Only continuances.
ReplyDelete2:11 ALJs were instructed to hold off on issuing anything less than FF decisions on adult CDRs or age 18 redeterminations. That guidance has not yet been rescinded. In at least one Region (so possibly others), staff attorneys are being given the cases before the scheduled ALJ hearing date and are being told to recommend postponing the hearing if the file as-is doesn't support an FF decision.
ReplyDelete8:49 & 2:11 Thanks for feedback. I could not understand why cdrs were being processed given the obstacles and health concerns caused by the pandemic.
ReplyDeletei work with ac judges and aos and no one is going around telling them what to do. so it's really urban legend that they don't have independence when making decisions. and lets keep it real, alj and aaj are both glorified attorney jobs. alj are just reworded hearing officers and the same will be the case if aajs start hearings.
ReplyDeleteThe bill would prevent the adoption of the proposed CDR regulation that was heavily criticized in the rule making process. The NPRM would target people awarded benefits under step five no matter the medical condition that resulted in the awarded, calling the case "medical improvement likely". Similarly children awarded benefits would be subjected to CDRs regardless of their health and requiring review at age 6 and 12, without any medical justification. The bill would block this proposal becoming adopted.
ReplyDeleteYes, CDRs are currently on hold but it is uncertain when that moratorium will stop. That has nothing to do with the NPRM and the bill.
12:52 Read the ALJ PD, it's expressly judicial and the National chief ALJ has told the line judges that he considers them the equivalent of District Court judges.
ReplyDelete12:52, they are equivalent to a Senate confirmed U.S. District Court Judge who can put you in prison for life or sentence you to death? surely you are speaking in jest, just surely. yes ALJs and AAJs do important work and have similar PDs, but let's keep that ego in check and based in reality.
ReplyDelete12:52, I guess you weren’t in the training where an AAJ told the room, “The agency told us they wanted more opinion remands, so we found more opinion remands.” Pity.
ReplyDelete12:48, I guess you weren't in the room a decade or so ago when ALJs were getting push back on the previous backlog, and then they basically paid down the backlog. Pity.
ReplyDeleteALJ's are important inferior officers of the executive branch. They are not equivalent to US DC judges. Not even close. For those that want to dispute this, let me know when any SSA ALJ got a Presidential appointment followed by a Senate confirmation hearing. Also, ALJ's and DC Judges have different pay rates (ALJ's top out at $174k a year and DC Judges make $208k). Finally, a District Court judge presides over multiple types of cases and controversies in both the criminal and civil realm. They have power to issue subpoenas, hold parties in contempt, and issue binding orders/injunctions.
ReplyDelete@1:31, and making those holding hearings more susceptible to agency pressure by eliminating the ALJ statutory decisions protections would only make that kind of response more widespread.
ReplyDelete