I have no problem with trying to improve the fee system and raise the cap (I'd actually prefer for SSA to be out of the fee agreement approval process entirely, absent a protest), but "Americans unfairly denied Social Security Disability Insurance?" That's just flat propaganda. I also wonder whether the correlation between representation and allowance rates represents causation or selective client acceptance (not taking on the dog cases). Whatever the issue, I'm tired of seeing the "dump Saul" posts in every comment thread -- we get it already.
I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone a viable living. But, maybe if representatives would better screen their cases and not just take any case they would be able to maximize their profits in cases and would not be seeking an increase in fees.
@4:47. Its hard to screen when, because of vague regulations and policies which are inconsistently interpreted and applied, the chance of success depends mostly on which judge you get.
12:29 PM. I am just "guessing"... You've never been a claimant, let alone a denied one. As for "unfairly denied," that can mean anything. You "could" say someone was "fairly denied" because the ALJ made a decision "according to our rules..." Yet, that personeho was denied has no real world capability to perform and sustain the alleged jobs, if such jobs actually exist. So, the "unfairly denied" is an OPINION of the failure of the system to approve people who have no real world ability to perform and sustain a job. We don't all have a support team that performs the parts of the job that are beyond our capabilities. If you think SSA gets EVERY denial right, you're either someone who thinks most should be denied, or you haven't read enough denials. Read comments from people who have been denied. They obviously feel they were "unfairly denied." Let's say most of those people are lying or delusional. Let's say they don't know or understand SSA'd definition of "disabled, by our rules." At some point, you have to realize that at least SOME of their claims are credible, right? I was approved by an ALJ after a different ALJ had denied me, based largely on the same evidence. I clearly thought the first ALJ's decision was unfair. When you compare the 2 decisions, it's like they are describing 2 completely different people. Frankly, the entire process seems arbitrary and unfair to me. I mean, if the first ALJ COULD have denied me, why didn't the second? I really don't know the answer to that.
9 comments:
Definitely time to get rid of Saul!
Wonder if the public will have sympathy for lawyers in this time.
If you are inclined to do so, be sure your fee agreements allow for an increase, at least to $7K,while the case is pending.
I have no problem with trying to improve the fee system and raise the cap (I'd actually prefer for SSA to be out of the fee agreement approval process entirely, absent a protest), but "Americans unfairly denied Social Security Disability Insurance?" That's just flat propaganda. I also wonder whether the correlation between representation and allowance rates represents causation or selective client acceptance (not taking on the dog cases). Whatever the issue, I'm tired of seeing the "dump Saul" posts in every comment thread -- we get it already.
I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone a viable living. But, maybe if representatives would better screen their cases and not just take any case they would be able to maximize their profits in cases and would not be seeking an increase in fees.
@4:47. Its hard to screen when, because of vague regulations and policies which are inconsistently interpreted and applied, the chance of success depends mostly on which judge you get.
Just get SSA out of the fee business entirely. Let the reps charge whatever they feel is appropriate and collect it themselves. Problem solved.
12:29 PM. I am just "guessing"... You've never been a claimant, let alone a denied one. As for "unfairly denied," that can mean anything. You "could" say someone was "fairly denied" because the ALJ made a decision "according to our rules..." Yet, that personeho was denied has no real world capability to perform and sustain the alleged jobs, if such jobs actually exist. So, the "unfairly denied" is an OPINION of the failure of the system to approve people who have no real world ability to perform and sustain a job. We don't all have a support team that performs the parts of the job that are beyond our capabilities. If you think SSA gets EVERY denial right, you're either someone who thinks most should be denied, or you haven't read enough denials. Read comments from people who have been denied. They obviously feel they were "unfairly denied." Let's say most of those people are lying or delusional. Let's say they don't know or understand SSA'd definition of "disabled, by our rules." At some point, you have to realize that at least SOME of their claims are credible, right? I was approved by an ALJ after a different ALJ had denied me, based largely on the same evidence. I clearly thought the first ALJ's decision was unfair. When you compare the 2 decisions, it's like they are describing 2 completely different people. Frankly, the entire process seems arbitrary and unfair to me. I mean, if the first ALJ COULD have denied me, why didn't the second? I really don't know the answer to that.
You could make it a thousand dollars less and there would still be representatives.
Remember, they were able to find lawyers to say the election was stolen.
Post a Comment