Let's say you're developmentally disabled, meaning you've been disabled from birth. You start drawing SSI as a child due to your disability. You become 18 and Social Security does a review to see whether you're disabled under the adult standard and they decide you are. Then, a parent dies or goes on Social Security benefits when you're 21. That potentially entitles you to Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits on your parent's Social Security number since you became disabled before age 22. Shouldn't Social Security just put you on the DAC automatically? You've already been found disabled under the same standard. Under a new addition to Social Security's POMS manual, the answer is not so fast. They first want to make sure they can't find a way to cut you off the SSI benefits you're already drawing. So, if you're the claimant aren't you a little afraid you're going to lose your sole means of support if you file that DAC claim? But, if you don't file the DAC claim, you may lose your SSI because you refused to avail yourself of means of support other than SSI. Nice Catch 22 they've set up for you. That's what all this fancy talk about collateral estoppel is about, finding ways to cut claimants off benefits, or, really, finding ways to avoid collateral estoppel since that doctrine should help the claimant in this situation.
13 comments:
None of this sounds new. SSA has been treating DAC claimants like this for years. I have a hearing coming up later this month where my client has been on SSI since childhood and has undergone several CDRs as an adult. Yet somehow, despite him continuing to draw SSI benefits, SSA said he wasn't disabled when it came to DAC benefits.
The definitions of disabled are different for some impairments, legally blind being the one most common. It's been maybe 10 years or so but SSA used to adopt the SSI decisions if the decision shows an onset prior to age 22.
I think you are misinterpreting this instruction. This isn’t about cutting anyone off SSI if they are eligible for DAC, which happens automatically. This is about determining if an age 18 RZ (non-medical) and an age 18 CDR (medical) are appropriate at attainment of age 18. If this has been done prior to the DAC eligibility, SSA will adopt the decision to the DAC claim. If it hasn’t, it can’t adopt the DAC decision. Usually an age 18 CDR goes hand in hand with a new adult decision for DAC.
This sounds like the proper approach. But it’s not always how it’s handled, and certainly not what is told to the applicants in the field office, who are instead led to believe they’re starting over from square one because a parent retired or whatever. And these things turn into galactic life-ruining messes when the field staff screw up and the claim ends up before some pedantic deny-happy ALJ.
Sorry, friends - Charles is right on this one.
SSA stopped adopting decisions a year or two ago. Collateral Estoppel has been severely restricted.
When an SSI recipient becomes eligible for Title 2 disability benefits, EVERY claim now goes to DDS.
Since I deal with severely disabled individuals, the result has merely been an intolerable delay, rather than a denial. But it's a problem.
You would think that an understaffed and under-resourced agency under scrutiny for delays in deciding claims would jump at a chance to take a chunk of unnecessary work off its plate. Bad policy decision?
It’s a combination of incompetence and psychopathic lust for power that pervades among the top brass in Baltimore. Some people are so pathetically soulless that treating others poorly is the only way they can stave off complete emptiness and crippling melancholy.
Can confirm that in 2011 my son became entitled to SSI at age 18 and 1 month based on an IQ less than 50. Took 2-3 months to confirm the submitted medical records (I had great documentation) before approval. 10 years later, his mom retires and we file for DAC. He's 10 years older, his IQ hasn't gotten better, ability to perform ADL is still shite. Asked if there would be a new decision and was told yes. I dug up my paperwork again and case went to the DDS. 2 months later get notice he was approved. Yes, that was quick for covid time but I had been told years before that based on his diagnosis, he was likely to never be called in for a medical CDR, but I guess the DAC process was a CDR by proxy. But those FO and DDS resources were not well spent, given the obviousness of the outcome.
SSA stopped “adopting” decisions several years ago. A case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. The powers that we finding that there were errors in adoption cases and instead of putting safeguards in place they got rid of it all together. So what was a simple and efficient process has been completely changed since you cannot adopt a decision but have to send it to DDS for a brand new medical decision. You will have instances where the DAC is denied but SSI continues. 🤷♀️
Ssa managers and leaders are cruel. Some of the most miserable people I met are ssa leaders
SSA leaders are soulless. Before 2000 and HPI, OHA or O-Whatever it is being called now, was a much kinder, claimant friendly place. HPI was a way for the Baltimorons to destroy OHA and now we have primo stupido decisions from the top down
The mental listings were changed in 2017. Thus for anyone allowed on a mental listing before that date, collateral estoppel would not apply. This also applies to the neurol and immune disorders listings if The listing changed since being allowed. This does not mean the person will be cut off SSI
11.35 is correct about collateral estoppel changes.
More context -- DDS instead of field office makes decision whether to apply collateral estoppel. If original allowance was Listing and Listings have materially changed, no collateral estoppel. This has been the rule but so few of the Listings had changed we rarely saw it in play.
It applies to any new app even under same Title.
DDS often gets it wrong even within the context of new POMS as in they fail to apply collateral estoppel when it should apply. Those cases can be won at Recon.
Another BIG problem is that SSA may not even "recognize" that client is on benefits already and then fails to obtain the file with the key "old" evidence in it. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE SSA's incompetence in this area.
Post a Comment