Some stories from the weekend:
- Washington Post article on Social Security's field office problems;
- Nancy Altman urges an end to the "starvation" of Social Security's field offices;
- Binder and Binder -- the law firm -- gets a big payday.
Some stories from the weekend:
8 comments:
The Post seems to be upset that SSA did not rush to reopen all offices, after their article a few weeks ago about how SSA FO are still closed.
Their first article was biased and so is this one.
I am not returning to my SSA office, until it is safe to do so.
The Binder payday is a non story, it was ten years of continuous representation at multiple administrative and federal court levels. It's an outlier fee but also a sign that the attorney fee approval process works.
Binder's payday is not our normal, but I believe we've seen one or two awards at close to that rate.
The Binder fee is not unusual. The issue here is that OGC has now been filing objections to 406(b) fees as windfall using a high "effective hourly rate" assertion as a basis to deny/cut fees. Rather than the forcing the ALJs to clean up garbage decisions, they are filing objections to both 406(b) and EAJA in an effort to discourage litigation. The court in Fields ruled that hourly rate was not an indicator on windfall. 25% means 25%.
@2:26
I'm curious if anyone has pointed out, that a stipulated remand is generally going to result in a far higher effective hourly rate, yet that doesn't mean the quality of the representation went down. In fact, it generally means the quality is quite good. So it's a bad metric to try to judge the fee motion.
My only complaint is that I think SSA should pay ALL LEGAL FEES of award cases as a tradeoff for the 5 month waiting period. This would encourage SSA to payoff all obvious cases as early as possible. I also believe if a claimant gets awarded on a 2nd or 3rd ALJ decision, then the payout should go back to the original application onset date. Exceptions to this might include significant increases in disability or if claimant is able to return to SGA for a year or more. This might cost SSA more, but, would largely offset Federal Court, Medicaid, Food Stamps, rent assistance and other costs. These ALJs that deny disabled people to "protect SSA..." Where do these denied claimants go? They get more MRIs, X-rays, CATscans, see more specialists, therapists, etc. I guarantee you the Federal government paid out more by denying me then they would have if they just paid me!! I didn't get the money, but doctors, hospitals, lawyers and others did.
Tim, reopening addresses the later filed claim going back to an earlier protected filing date to start the benefits clock. One has a pretty decent amount of time to file another claim after an unsuccessful one that would be able to pick up the earlier denied claim's PFD assuming that later decision maker found the person disabled back that far.
@8:53
Reopening is not tolled during the course of a claim, runs from the date of the initial application denial, and while the decrease in processing time has provided a fighting chance at reopening on a subsequent claim, in many cases it's not available particularly if there has been two or three remands from either the Appeals Council or courts.
Post a Comment