Action on new or amended regulations at Social Security has been almost non-existent at Social Security for years so it was a surprise to me to see that something had finally happened. The agency has received approval for new Listings for Digestive and Skin Disorders. Expect to see them in the Federal Register soon.
Social Security now has zero new or amended regulations pending approval at the Office of Management and Budget. I don't remember that happening before.
5 comments:
Apart from passive aggressive observations, what new regulations do YOU want to see? Where are NOSSCR and/or your own district's US representative at in terms of trying to get that regulation enacted?
I could just as easily say, "What's the point of new listings?" Most will never meet them anyway. They're not a "scientific" assessment of when someone becomes disabled... more like, everyone who reaches this point has been disabled in even the most stringent ALJ's, doctor's, and even Congress members minds... even Rand Paul!
@11:38
It's probably apocryphal, but it's been said the listing system came about because SSA was denying people in iron lungs.
In practice, yes the listings are almost never met, and I believe they should obviously be expanded, but the idea is that the most obvious cases are awarded before greater resources are spent on determining whether or not their particular limitations can still permit a return to work or alternative work so that the resources that would be spent on them can be better spent on other claims.
If recent history is any guide, I expect the new listings will be even more difficult to satisfy. That's likely the point in modifying them.
Every change I have seen to SSA's listings in my 14 years of practicing SSA law have been to make them harder to meet as a result of the agency losing mass numbers of court cases based on the plain language of the listings as written. The old listings 1.04 and 12.05, in particular, come to mind.
The "idea" of identifying and paying the "most obvious" cases might be the "theory," but, in practice, it's the most potentially damaging if publicized as a denial that get paid... ALS, Cancer, MS, cardiac, and anything else with a strong lobby. I am not saying those shouldn't be paid. However, if cutting operating expenses was more important, SSA would want a much greater percentage paid sooner. But, the philosophy is deny, deny and hope they go away (as in go "back to work.") Unfortunately, for too many, that just isn't a viable option. Instead, they are put at the mercy of a decision maker whom the system will support... no matter how little evidence supports their denials.
Post a Comment