Social Security requires documentation (primarily a 1696 form and fee agreement) in order to accept that a claimant is represented by an attorney or other person. Even though a case might be pending at a hearing office, these documents had to be submitted to the field office. There have been very serious problem processing this documentation at the field offices due to inadequate staffing. Processing the forms has also been delayed because the process for inputting data has been more complicated for agency employees than it should be. It has often been treated as a low priority matter meaning weeks, if not months, of delay. This leads to many telephone calls and letters from attorneys. Attorneys often resubmit the paperwork which causes unnecessary work at the field offices. The attitude of the field offices seems to be "Quit bugging us. We'll get to it when we get to it." The attitude of the attorneys is "We can't represent our clients at all until you take care of this. It can't wait for weeks or months."
Effective on December 13, this process has been changed to some extent. Now the documentation may be submitted directly to the hearing office if the claimant's case is pending there. This cuts down on the work at the field offices. Also, I understand that the process for inputting data into Social Security's systems has been simplified. That should also cut down on the workload at the field offices.
Let's hope for some improvement in performance.
11 comments:
Nope. First the submitted 1696 is reviewed for accuracy/authenticity. Then a separate system EVIEW which houses the "electronic file" is reviewed to see if any other attorneys have already been added or have requested withdrawal. If there is no prior submitted 1696 (HA HA) and the technician can determine if the request should be inputted, then you go to another program (RASR) and see if the Rep is listed already or if any other reps are listed as well. Even reps from prior filings remain there unless the FO goes in and manually terminates them. Let's say this is a clean situation, you then add the rep using the 1696 then you have to go to each entitlements systems (MCS and MSSICS) and "send" the information over to each of those systems. Then the FO has to send a 5002 via EDCS to either DDS or the HO informing them of the change in rep. So no....nothing is simple.
If they'd now let DDS enter the 1696 we'd have fewer headaches and less lost time on INI and RCN cases as well.
Why on earth can we not submit the 1696 with an online application? I can submit it online by attaching it when I file a recon or hearing request.
7:45 Thank you.
I appreciate knowing all the steps needed to simply enter my representation in the file.
Of course, that begs the question of what fool designed a system requiring that many inputs to accomplish what should be a relatively mundane task. This has been a problem for years and should have been corrected years ago. This action is a very tiny baby step to letting other offices enter the information. It doesn't do anything to solve the problem.
That is a failure of management and not a failure of the employees. While added staff is needed, having added staff working a ridiculously and unnessecary process still remains.
OHO is currently undergoing RASR training nationwide to help relieve some of this workload.
RASR is a great program when used correctly . Maybe if representatives submit withdrawal of representation timely it would help .. oh BTW .. there is that classic withdrawal of representation BUT not waiving fee !! Reps want it both ways . This can not be automated , requires manual actions , hence no rep is likely to get paid and may well end up with a "FAILURE TO WITHOLD" scenario.
Following up on my initial comment...remember all these other systems are all designed to send things back to the MBR (T2) and the SSR (T16) which are the actual records that create payments and are based on programming used in the 1970's and are housed in what the agency calls PCOM. Even "AUTOMATED" internet transactions are reverted back to PCOM. Central Office has yet to pull the trigger on real change in infrastructure.
Is there a separate step for giving attorneys access to ERE for claims at app and recon? I am not getting access to the ERE for most of my claims--even after atty acknowledgment letter and appeal to Recon stage. Any tips for fixing this?
The SSA literally will never recognize law firms. If they did, then all this 1696 nonsense would not be necessary.
Really a statement of appearance from a representative at the hearing should be necessary. It is in most other legal agencies.
I have done numerous other litigation including workers compensation, civil, and criminal court. Many attorneys appear on behalf all the time without the need for overburdening paperwork. The SSA is just stubbornly antiquated. But it makes more work for them. So karma there.
Yeah there doesn't seem to be a rational reason to keep the current system. It creates more work and burdens everyone involved. Seriously, what problem is this multi-step process trying to solve? Who's interest are being upheld by this process? Are there really that many attorneys submitting fraudulent 1696s? The solution to this is creating harsher sanctions against these reps--not creating a complex manual multi-step process for adding an representative to the case.Couldn't they also create smart forms that have a unique barcode for each firm/attorney, and auto process most of this? This is one of the dumbest Kafkaesque like situations I have ever encountered.
There are so many steps because SSA’s system is so antiquated. All the new web applications just put a new look on old technology. Everything is still manual at the ground level.
Post a Comment