Social Security has posted final numbers showing total fees paid to attorneys and others for representing claimants in 2022. Let's do a comparison with the last three years:
- 2019: 390,809 fees were paid for a total of $1,214,557,861. Average fee per case was $3,107.80
- 2020: 360,493 fees were paid, down 8% from 2019. The total fees
paid were $1,081,523,523, down 11% from 2019. Average fee per case was $3,000.12.
- 2021:
296,847 fees were paid, down 18% from 2020 and down 24% from 2019. The
total fees paid were $932,887,938, down 14% from 2020 and down 23% from
2020. Average fee per case was $3,142.66.
- 2022: 311,047 fees were paid, up 5% from 2021 but down 14% from 2020 and down 20% from 2019. The total fees paid were $923,992,941, down 1% from 2021, down 15% from 2020 and down 24% from 2019. The average fee per case was $2,970.59.
Social Security attorneys are genuinely hurting. The recent increase in the fee cap is only going to help so much, especially when you consider that the attorneys have to cope with huge inflation and case files that have been getting bigger and bigger because of electronic medical records. The end result is that the quality of representation of claimants has been going down.
Social Security depends upon claimants being represented. Take us out of the picture and workloads at Social Security become far worse.
Y'all understand this is a government program and never ever ever ever ever was it intended to be turned into a business and expected to turn a profit and become a career. You get that?
ReplyDeleteSo, I’m your mind, no attorneys should be involved with SSA at all and help no one? Think about what you’re saying before you post. There’s money to be made it’s just being paid at a slower pace.
DeleteSo people shouldn’t get paid doing hard work helping others?
DeleteI’d recommend you start saving money by using some common sense and discretion when ordering claimants’ medical records. Do you really think we need a claimant’s gynecology records and mammograms to evaluate her claim of disabling back pain? Think again. And I know it’s fun passive-aggressive sport to submit everything under the sun ten times in protest of the updated rules about submission of evidence. But it really is a huge waste of your money and everyone’s time. And if you really think you’ll get sanctioned for not submitting mammograms in a back pain case, you have no business practicing law.
ReplyDeleteGee, if only this could be explained by some major world event in 2020, the year the decrease began, that led to a reduction in the number of applications filed and hearings held. I wonder what possibly could have happened...
ReplyDeleteThe WHOLE GLOBAL ECONOMY took a hit from the pandemic. Stands to reason that would affect your practice area too.
10:03 Yes a government agency that is supposed to ensure due process in its dealings. There is so much JD envy on the part of agency employees. If you are hell bent on pushing attorneys out of the process, start providing due process and make the system less weighted against claimants. Reps fill the big chasm caused by the Agency's poor performance.
ReplyDelete@ 10:03
ReplyDeleteThere are millions of private workers in the US that depend on government programs/contracts/grants for the entirety of their careers. Most are not attorneys. And many make more $$ than disability attorneys. Should all of those people be put out of work too?
There were profitable Disability firms going back 50+ years, so your plainly wrong about the intent of the program. Why would SSA devote resources to processing attorney fees if they did not intend for attorneys to run profitable businesses?
@10:19
ReplyDeleteOur firm mostly handles Workers Comp cases. We had our most profitable year in 2021 for WC, and our least profitable year for SSD in 2021. It is a lot more complicated then you seem to think.
@10:13
Medical record costs do not lower the overall attorney fee awards, so what does that have to with anythings? In NY we do not have to pay anything for records. The real problem is the volume of records and the time it takes to both request and organize those records has gotten far worse since 2020. And the state agencies are getting much worse at organizing these more complicated records at the same time.
I'm assuming there will be a separate post forthcoming about the new fee cap, but until then, I'll comment at that issue here. The new $7200 fee cap went into effect on 11-30-22. However, the payment center rarely uses the new fee cap when calculating our fees, even though our fee agreement contains the proper escalator clause to allow the new fee cap. We figure that less than half of our fees since 11/30 that would qualify for the increased cap are actually calculated correctly. The rest are still using the old $6000 cap. We contacted NOSSCR and they said that they have rec'd countless calls already from attorneys about this issue. They said SSA is aware and that more training is needed. I thought that the reason the cap didn't start until 11/30 last year was to allow the new training? And how much training is needed to explain that $7200 instead of $6000 is the cap to a 25% fee? Very frustrating as thousands of dollars in potential and lawful fees are being held up by SSA.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not that more training is needed. It’s that the people processing the fee are supposed to actually read the fee agreements instead of just button mash…but they don’t. So then you get this mess.
DeleteIt’s a manual process just like a lot of other processes lagging behind the times at SSA. If the system would just automate the cap and percentage effective with the date effective it would help the newer cases.
For the older cases, like I said earlier, someone has to care enough about paying the correct fee to make it happen.
I can solve it! Stop having SSA make the payment and the reps can get paid directly by the claimant.
ReplyDeleteSolved.
Amen
Delete@1:49 Seriously? That's your solution? Make it so it's even harder for claimants to get help? Clearly you don't care about the people your agency is supposed to be serving. If I can't get paid, I can't help any of these people seeking benefits from an Agency that is actively trying to screw them. I know that's your dream, but thank God you're not in a position were you can destroy the system.
ReplyDeleteYour comments do nothing but confirm the bias we know many of you have. You are cruel and the mere fact that you're employed by SSA is one of the glaring problems problems with the system. I have dedicated my entire career to fighting corrupt bureaucrats like you.
I'm not the problem with this system. You are.
@ 10:13 is clearly unaware of the duty imposed on representatives to submit ALL medical evidence that "relates to" whether or not the Claimant is disabled. We as attorneys are forced to interpret this vague regulation and decide whether or not records should be submitted, while keeping in mind that we are subject to suspension or disqualification if we choose not to submit records that SSA later determines "relates to" the Claimant's impairment. Sorry, but to save my own hide, I'm submitting everything.
ReplyDeleteI can't tell you how many times I have been asked by a Judge to go and get completely irrelevant records after the hearing and submit them. I have had Judge's tell me this allows them more time to actually look at the case and make a decision. So on that end we submit everything we believe would be relevant to any time period the Judge would want to review. To the poster earlier, I'm assuming you are an SSA employee and have never been belittled by an SSA Judge over something completely stupid and irrelevant?
ReplyDeleteNo, we just get belittled by the general public daily for things we have no control over or are irrelevant.
DeleteOn a side note, I’ve been belittled by a real judge a few times, not a fake SSA judge…does that count?
10:03. If SSA actually paid all the cases of people who were disabled, there would be no need for attorneys. The real problem is the legal standard. If preponderance of the evidence points to being ruled disabled, the person should be ruled disabled. Unfortunately, upon review, only substantial evidence is required to uphold the decision. Unfortunately some people think substantial means substantial, but it really only means "some excuse the ALJ can point to." In essence, some ALJs apparently use "beyond a reasonable doubt" as their actual standard. That's why claimants need attorneys.
ReplyDeleteIn many States (like Florida) the copy services attempt to bill a $1 per page for all medical records including electronic records that repeat the same 30 pages 40 times to make the file over 1,000 pages long. The copy services claim that the to get the records at a low cost the requests have to come directly from the claimant with the records being delivered directly to the claimant, which isn't always easy because claimants don't usually have printers, scanners, and faxes. Also, some doctors want a $1 per page, period, and there is no reasoning with some of them. Clearly it would be easier, less stressful, and more profitable if a national law were passed mandating free medical records for anyone representing a Social Security claimant.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there really is no such thing as a clearly irrelevant medical record. Any record can turn out to be relevant even though it may not seem likely before it's ordered. I've had many cases, like a back pain claimant, whose supposedly irrelevant optometry records revealed that claimant had terrible eye disease which claimant forgot to mention (if he/she even realized having it). The so called gynecology records, that a prior poster says would be irrelevant, may show uterine fibroids that are aggravating the back pain. The regulations require all records to be submitted but I was doing so long before the regulation because of what I just described. The real issue is trying to get a new HITECH rule passed to remove the baloney blocks to getting medical records from the copy services and some medical records providers. That will at least help reduce time expenditure wasted arguing about records costs with the records providers. Ultimately, time spent is always equal to money spent.
Hi! First time posting here. No need to publish, but I am very curious about your remark regarding the effect of electronic medical records on disability claims. I thought the electronic files were supposed to make the process faster for everyone.
ReplyDeleteWow, I have to deal with inflation too and I only get a few dollars a month from SSDI. Looks like things are tough all over!
ReplyDelete10:13 I can't tell you how many services I provide for free for my old clients who call me when they get hit with SSA demands for an overpayment they think isn't their fault, or records out of a file I provide for free, or when SSA comes for their benefits to cut them off due to improvement. I'm as much a social services provider as a for profit business. Remember, it's shit societies like China where they always come after the civil rights lawyers when they want to crack down on everyone's rights. We are the thin grey line keeping the evil rot at the very top inside and outside SSA from devouring you. They don't care if your SSI goes away and you are on the street eating out of garbage cans!
ReplyDeletemy blockbuster franchise isnt doing so good these days either.
ReplyDelete3:44: Thank you for representing claimants with CDRs and overpayments. As an ALJ, I can tell you that you are an outlier. The vast majority of those cases that come before me are unrepresented and it seems Legal Aid is too underfunded to help all the claimants who need help in this regard.
ReplyDelete"Social Security depends upon claimants being represented. Take us out of the picture and workloads at Social Security become far worse"
ReplyDeleteIs this a joke? Represented claimants cause serious problems. Reps are hard to schedule with, request postponements, don't submit evidence on time, etc.
Give me an unrepresented claimant any day...much easier from an administrative standpoint.
724, yes I bet it is easier to work cases without reps. Easier to avoid due process issues. Easier to bury a case that is difficult. Reps are an integral part of the process. The proof is in the fact that many of the rank and file have such JD envy.
ReplyDeleteIf the reps would just help get the proofs needed for allowances that would be a great help. I’ve been at SSA for almost two decades and I can count on one hand the times reps helped a claimant with proofs. Other than that, makes no difference in the field. 99% of the time I never even speak to the rep…just the claimants.
DeleteYeah repping is good that the reps never ever leave to become ALJs
ReplyDeleteWhen all the attys leave the non atty reps are going to clean up!
ReplyDelete@7:36
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "proofs."? Workers Comp payment information and wage info? Our office does this for every case, but we also have the benefit of representing the clients in the Workers Comp case too.
Isn’t this missing the amounts paid on SSI claims?
ReplyDelete