I had written recently about Social Security's inability to react to an adverse ruling by a court at anything other than a glacial pace. Let me ask when the agency might decide what it's going to do about Marasco & Nesselbush v. Collins. On July 16, 2021 the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that:
... SSA's rule barring payments to attorneys for work completed before they enter government service is both arbitrary and, in some circumstances, in conflict with the statutory mandate to pay "a reasonable fee" for successful representation of SSA claimants. ...
and further held that:
... SSA must adjust its rules, as described above, to ensure that the law firms that employ salaried associates to represent SSA claimants may receive direct payment of the attorney's fees to which the firms' associates are entitled for representation performed while employed by those law firms. ...
This didn't go to the Supreme Court so Social Security has no choice but to implement it in the First Circuit area (most of New England) but it makes little sense to try to apply it just to that one area of the country. Payment centers all over the country are involved in authorizing attorney fees in the cases of claimants residing in the First Circuit area. Why would you want to have two systems? I can't exclude the possibility that Social Security will be that pig-headed but I hope that wiser heads prevail. Something should have been done about this problem decades ago.
3 comments:
I was just reading some cases from the 80s. In those cases, judges were complaining that the agency was ignoring the holdings of the courts - the nonacquiesence policy. They still seem to ignore things from the court. I am about to file a motion for contempt on a case where they are ignoring a direct order from the court. This agency seems to have a culture that reeks of arrogance and dishonesty.
i have had hearing reps leave for government service. i have not been able to petition for fees for them due to this policy. this needs to change nationwide.
@9:46
20 CFR § 404.985(b)(1) is a fun read. Not sure if anyone's ever pressed SSA on their own deadline to issue an acquiescence ruling within 120 days of the court's decision. Then again, there is an out for SSA, as the deadline doesn't apply when it is "no longer feasible."
Post a Comment