Pages

May 16, 2022

Two New Rulings Related To Eric Conn Cases -- Reasonable Suspicion Is Enough Proof

     Social Security will publish two new Rulings in the Federal Register tomorrow. You can read them today. Here are a few excerpts:

  • Social Security Ruling 22-1p: Fraud and Similar Fault Redeterminations Under Sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act -- "... We may find there is reason to believe fraud or similar fault was involved in a claim for benefits or payments, or in providing evidence, based on the actions of any individual whose actions affect an application for benefits or payments, or the evidence provided in support of it, even when such an individual has no direct relationship to the affected claimant, beneficiary, or recipient or acts without the affected claimant’s, beneficiary’s or recipient’s knowledge or participation. These individuals may include, but are not limited to, claimants, beneficiaries, auxiliaries, recipients, spouses, representatives, medical sources, translators, interpreters, and representative payees. For example, we may have reason to believe a medical source or a representative provided false information to support a claim without the knowledge or participation of the beneficiary or the recipient. ..."
  • Social Security Ruling 22-2p: Evaluation of Claims Involving the Issue of Similar Fault in the Providing of Evidence -- "... We must disregard evidence under sections 205(u)(1)(B) and 1631(e)(7)(A)(ii) of the Act due to similar fault if there is reason to believe, meaning reasonable grounds to suspect, that the person knew the evidence provided was false or incomplete or that the information that was material to the determination was knowingly concealed. A finding of similar fault requires more than mere suspicion, speculation, or a hunch, but it does not require a preponderance of evidence. ..."

2 comments:

  1. Links are broken in the post. Swap the 9 to an 8 in the link to see SSR 22-1p.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...seems odd to insert a standard that is clearly yoinked whole cloth from criminal law. I look forward to writing a brief to the future citing Terry v. Ohio. (In reality, I really doubt that is going to come up much at all.)

    ReplyDelete