This is the processing time at the Disability Determination Services. I don't think the report specifies but this looks like the initial level processing time.
 |
| From Medical Evidence Collection In Adult Social Security Disability Claims, a report to the Social Security Advisory Board |
What’s going on in the DDSs is a disgrace.
ReplyDeleteSchools not sending records, testing not having been done due to pandemic, medical sources finding it a lucrative business in telemedicine, not being able to schedule CEs for long periods of time. Infinite number of second chances given to claimants to submit forms, nreliable post systems, attorneys filing claims without getting even rudimentary sources.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can have overtime but only if you and your office have met all production goals, have not had too many errors, do not have too many delayed cases
ReplyDeleteAs an OQR employee who reviews DDS’ work what they do produce is frequently mind-boggling incorrect
ReplyDeleteAs a DDS employee who sees OQR returns they are frequently mind boggling inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteTouché 11:06
DeleteOn the OHO side, the number of claimants who win at the ALJ level just based on the DDS RFC alone is staggering. Some are 55+ where DDS got the PRW determination wrong, but also many under-50 claimants with tons of non exertional limits. DDS thus denies a lot of people the law says they should have paid.
ReplyDeleteDds likely screens and approves if the disability is Obvious. If the claim isn’t obvious they will deny it
ReplyDeleteOnce the hearing offices reopen, they should create an emergency procedure temporarily to allow a large number of cases to bypass reconsideration and go straight to hearing. Could keep hearing offices busy and alleviate some of the burden on DDS.
ReplyDeleteAs a DDS employee, I am swamped with a pending caseload of almost 100 claims to manage. Every week new cases have to have their initial development complete so we can add to the madness. Then we go back into our pending and look for what’s missing to move each case along. Training didn’t prepare for this at all. Trainers trained us one way to do things, then the supervisors and helpers each do things their own way. We discover who’s way matters on our evaluations after the fact! From the start we’re looking at the case’s med vocational possibilities always focusing on speed. The turnover rate is rumored to be exceptionally high, and it’s no wonder.
ReplyDeleteWhen did they shift to wfh?
ReplyDeleteBy the time claims even get assigned to an examiner, they are now almost 6 months old. So developing claims has become a monumental task to get all the updated treatment info. QA/DQB split hairs and are rarely consistent. High pendings (200+ for some!) mean higher call volumes and lead to burnout. For a difficult job that starts in the low $30s/year, it’s not enough. Examiners with 20+ years experience make only $40-$45k/year and are leaving in droves. It’s difficult to even hire new examiners, and even if we do- it takes a year (at best!) before trainees are proficient in initial claims. To boot, the new DCPS system is tedious and terrible for case management. SSA has a HUGE problem on its hands.
ReplyDelete@9:25 Yikes does not sound great, especially after SSA decided to bring back the Recon level to all states.
ReplyDeleteI have also noticed a drop in the quality of medical expert reviews at the DDS level. Seems that anyone with sedentary PRW is an automatic denial--even those over 60 with multiple joint replacements and other severe impairments. Had a 64 year old women denied with a shoulder and hip replacement, with the other sides pending replacement. At one point She fell and smashed out all of her front teeth and severely broke the shoulder that was already scheduled for replacement. She also had recurrent breast cancer that required a mastectomy and it interfered with treatment for her rheumatoid arthritis. All of this was in the record prior to her Recon denial, and medical expert disagreed with the marked physical limitations assigned by the State Agency consultative examiner, and opined she could perform light work.
I guess the word "obvious," obviously means different things to different people. So does the word "reasonable," otherwise you wouldn't have courts protecting 20 percent payers and other "obvious" people being denied.
DeleteDDS is poorly run and understaffed. Thus, the backlog.
ReplyDeleteI never understood why SSA doesn’t just change its rules to exclude disability at age 62 rather than full retirement age for new applications.
ReplyDeleteIf you can’t work at 62, just retire. I can’t imagine the odds of getting better and returning to work will increase. So make 62 the cut off.
And then accept reduced payments for the rest of your life? Why would you do that (or be expected to) if you are unable to work?
DeleteBecause you’re retired Tim, that’s the point. Most people do not wait until full retirement age to collect benefits.
DeleteYou’re not guaranteed tomorrow . The government is expecting a certain percentage to never collect. Take the guaranteed RIB and stop gambling with your health.
The whole system is poorly run and understaffed. The comments here, taken together, show that this system is badly, badly broken. From DDS to OHO to the AC. I've never seen anything more arbitrary than these decisions. And, lately, I've realized how many decisions are based on nothing more than speculation and conjecture. You have doctors at DDS whose competence is sometimes questionable and/or who are not really looking at files and are making decisions based on things that are just flat out wrong or making guesses (that almost always result in denials) where there is really not enough information. You have ALJs who are not medically trained interpreting medical evidence to determine consistency (also most often giving the benfit of the doubt to the DDS alleged doctors). You have situations where multiple opinions from treating doctors are rejected in favor of a short, conclusory, and totally speculative opinion from an alleged DDS doctor. Speculation and conjecture seem to be the hallmarks of this system. How can this be even remotely constitutional?
ReplyDeleteIf it has to go to AC and back it is neither obvious or reasonable.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you DDS docs that read this. Can you tell me how a person with congestive heart failure who had shortness of breath, weakness, fatigue, and swelling the feet and legs can stand or walk for 6 hours? First, the symptoms are consistent with the diagnosis and medical records so there is no question as to them. I am looking at a decision where 2 DDS docs made this finding. And, this type of thing is not at all unusual. Seems to me just the edema in the legs would prevent standing and walking for 6 hours. But, I'm not a doctor so, you tell me.
ReplyDeleteIt could be due to a lot of things such as med records not being detailed enough to support a severe condition. Then again, the doctors might only review what records the claim examiners sent with the case.
DeleteThanks 5:40 for confirming what I already knew: DDS doctors are not reviewing all the records. And, on that case the records were detailed enough and there were other severe conditions as well. The reason for the RFC was that it was what was needed to justify a denial.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all DDS "doctors" know they aren't there to support approvals. 2nd, they get paid by the case. 3rd, reading one file could take hours. 4th, if you want to get paid, keep your gig..then, the easiest way to do this is work the case backwards. Meaning, if the claimant is 45, you can deny at sedentary, but at 50, you have to claim they can do light duty. You skim the records and cherry pick something to support your RFC "evaluation." If you want to get a real assessment, you have to redact the claimant's age.
Delete