From the just issued Spring 2022 Semiannual Report to Congress by Social Security's Inspector General:
... Section 1129 of the Social Security Act, as amended, authorizes a [Civil Monetary Penalty] ... against anyone who: (1) makes a false or misleading statement to SSA to obtain or retain benefits or payments; (2) receives benefits or payments while withholding disclosure of a material fact; or (3) wrongfully converts a beneficiary’s payments while acting as a representative payee. We are authorized to impose penalties of up to $8,708 for each false or misleading statement, material omission, or conversion. Violators may also be subject to an assessment, in lieu of damages, of up to twice the amount of any resulting overpayment or conversion.
During this reporting period, we resolved 55 Section 1129 cases and imposed $2,860,957 in penalties and assessments resulting from Section 1129 violations. ...
If you've wondered why the Inspector General might have over penalized Social Security claimants who may have been less than truthful with Social Security, here's what it was all about. Pumping up this number to impress Congress. Doesn't seem worth it, does it?
6 comments:
There is another term for being "less than truthful" in connection with an SSDI claim. That term is "fraud". The people who lied in connection with their claim for benefits should consider themselves lucky they were only fined. Kudos to SSA-OIG for doing its job.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for anyone who lies to get or keep benefits.
If you want to lie or withhold information you should penalized.
I don’t have an issue with people doing what they want to do, just know there may be consequences for your actions and be ready to accept those consequences if or when they come.
I know I’ve accepted my share.
Maybe anyone accused of fraud should be shot? Burned at the stake? Pushed into an active volcano? All without due process?
That doesn't exactly sound like the American way, amigo.
2:15,
No, I think the civil monetary penalty, which comes with due process, will suffice. I think the better question is why you don't think there should be consequences for fraud.
Because sometimes fraud isn’t fraud, it’s misunderstanding complex rules or notices that make no sense, are incomplete, are internally inconsistent or contradict other notices. And sometimes attempts to clarify a beneficiary’s situation go unanswered or are answered incorrectly. And it is often hard for beneficiaries with post-entitlement issues to find attorneys to help them, so they end up unjustly charged with fraud. Now, before you say anything, there clearly are beneficiaries who knowingly withhold information and fail to report required information. But to assess huge penalties beyond the overpayments, which can be quite large, may not be appropriate, especially for those who are still disabled and unable to work.
I think this really does not count as :due process" as teh OIG is judge jury and executioner.
Post a Comment