For some time now attorneys like me who represent Social Security claimants have had a problem with field offices delaying processing paperwork we submit appointing us to represent claimants. At least where I am this has gradually gone from an occasional problem to a common problem. We may be on the way to this becoming a problem in every case.
Until the field office processes the appointment paperwork we can't really represent the claimant. No one at Social Security will talk with us. We can't access the claimant's file online. We don't receive notification about actions the agency takes.
Taken to an extreme, and I fear that's where we're headed, representation of claimants becomes an impossibility.
This isn't happening because anyone at Social Security decided that it should happen. It's local field offices overwhelmed with work putting off tasks they regard as of secondary importance. The problem is that the workloads aren't going to decrease. There's always going to be work you can't get to. I fear that we're approaching a "Not now. Not later. Not ever" situation.
You frequently see comments on this board from agency employees bemoaning the fact that attorneys keep submitting their appointment paperwork over and over and keep calling to ask about unprocessed appointment paperwork. What the hell do you expect to happen if you don't process the paperwork? The attorney has no idea whether the problem is that the agency never received the paperwork. They're anxious to begin representing their clients. Of course, they're going to resubmit the paperwork. Of course, they're going to call. Quit blaming the victim of your inability to process all the work you've been given to do. If you want to stop the re-submission of appointment paperwork and pestering calls about it, assign processing appointment paperwork a higher priority. Get it done in a reasonable time and we'll stop pestering you.
I second this emotion...
ReplyDeleteWhen everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
ReplyDeleteWhat would help is if we had time to do it.
So make it a higher than what? I spend all day every day either processing awards, taking new claims, answering the phones or working at the front servicing the public coming in the office.
Let me know which one to drop. It’s overwhelming.
This a perfect example of a self-imposed inefficiency that cannot be justified by any rational policy objective or "protection" of claimants. It simply makes everyone's life harder. When I represent claimant's in Federal Court, I am not required to send in any "proof" of representation, nor do my clients sign any of the initial case documents. Why? Because Federal Courts do not treat attorneys like untrustworthy frauds or criminals. Same deal with with our firm's attorney appointment for NY Workers Comp claims, which do require a signed retainer -- but the back end processing is far simpler and quicker.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of having a Rep ID number if SSA cannot use that number to expedite representative assignment? Why do FO staff need to perform double/triple entry of the same attorney information into multiple systems? I understand there are difficult IT hurdles, but surely something can be done in the short term to make this process more efficient.
One of the problems Charles is we are not supposed to enter a rep into the system until we reach the NH and verify they electronically signed the paperwork. Do you have any idea how many of your clients do not answer the phone or return a message?? So what do you want us to stop doing so we can repeatedly call your clients back? Start educating your clients about the process. Let them know we will be contacting them and ignoring calls and voicemail is not helping anyone.
ReplyDeleteThat’s the insane part. No other administrative agency or court delays acknowledging the attorney-client relationship by wasting the time with an ex-parte communication before moving forward. Beacuse it’s a huge waste of time and if there is some type of fraud by representatives who decide to undertake this work without permission, punish them. It’s like the all evidence rule, a few reps get way out of line and thousands of reps pay the price (along with everybody who now has to sort through and review obviously immaterial evidence).
DeleteNot speaking fr all claimants, but, one of my longterm issues has been sticking to anything that resembles a schedule. Often, pain has made it impossible to sleep until I am exhausted. I might sleep for 30 minutes (and not for hours afterwards) or 10 hours. Knowing I need to accept a call can cause anxiety, which only makes it harder to sleep. So, you miss a call or calls. But, if I tried to just stay up... well, that wouldn't work, either.
Delete@10:38
ReplyDeleteI do not think anyone is suggesting that FO employees need to solve this problem or work harder. It is the responsibility of upper management at SSA to recognize extreme inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the claims process, and develop a new process (which may not even require major IT system changes) THIS WOULD NOT REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL/EXECUTIVE INTERVENTION. I truly do not understand what upper management is doing all day. Are they lazy, out of touch, or does the culture at SSA produce process obsessed bureaucrats who hamstring good ideas from being implemented in a reasonable time-frame? The solution cannot always be hiring more workers -- which take years to be trained properly b/c upper management scrapped the previous training program that was far superior.
Attorneys are also becoming overwhelmed due the flood of new errors on basic case processing issues. I spend at least 2x more time on application claims compared to pre-2020. The current situation is unsustainable for all parties involved. If things do not change for the better within the next 1-3 years, there will be a massive exodus of both SSA employees and claimant representatives.
10.55 claims that SSA MUST call claimant to verify appointment before processing 1696.
ReplyDeleteReally?
Where in the POMS does it say this. Show me please.
Doesn’t RASR have a question that asks if the NH attested to signing the 1696? If I remember correctly, “no” was not a choice.
DeleteNot every procedure is in POMS, yet. It may come out in an EM with a start/stop date to follow the procedure.
DeleteHas SSA ever considered that there are some disability claimants who are unable to answer or speak on the phone--as a result of their disability? I was appointed, and then had my appointment revoked immediately before my client was approved, with no prior notice or phone call. Found out by letter AFTER my client had already been paid.
ReplyDeleteThis client had most of his jaw removed to treat his cancer, and could not speak coherently over the phone. This was clearly indicated on the application. And I had no expectation that our attorney appointment needed to be verified, because that had never occurred in any of my other claims where we use the same electronic signing process.
@1:40
More to the point, even if there was a POM that required singing, why can it not be modified after discovering the process is highly inefficient and interfering with the claimant's desire to be represented. I believe the statute that SSA cites as mandating verification for electronic signatures could be interpreted more liberally. SSA officials seem to always choose the most risk adverse and compliance orientated policy, even when that policy is clearly not mandated by statute. They need to care more about providing competent efficient service to Americans, and develop processes that reduce the medial workload for FO employees.
None of my clients are minors. Apart from a few with severe mental disabilities, all of my clients are capable of consenting to representation via electronic signature. If there are representatives that abuse this system, target those outliers with new sanctions. But stop treating claimants as children who need to be protected from the attorneys they hire.
I believe there is a process to follow for people who are not able to speak on the phone but you have to get “permission “ and have it waived by someone up the food chain.
DeleteThe procedure is very inefficient. Stupid rules are made to be broken…..
Delete"One of the problems Charles is we are not supposed to enter a rep into the system until we reach the NH and verify they electronically signed the paperwork. Do you have any idea how many of your clients do not answer the phone or return a message?? So what do you want us to stop doing so we can repeatedly call your clients back? Start educating your clients about the process. Let them know we will be contacting them and ignoring calls and voicemail is not helping anyone."
ReplyDeleteSo just how big a problem is it having attorneys submit electronic applications when the claimant knows nothing about it? Just process the electronic application and ASSUME the application and the 1696 is legitimate from any attorney who is registered with the SSA as a representative.
And if any attorney did file a claim without permission, then report them to the Bar Association and they will be disbarred and barred from representing anyone before the SSA and possibly be fined or jailed in the process.
Inventing procedures to deal with non-existent problems making more work for everyone is now SOP with the SSA. So sad!
@433 PM It is rare. I did have one where the person said they had just called and talked to an attorney about filing but didn't know they were filing. They were pretty upset but a claim had been filed but since they did not authenticate it we didn't do anything with it. But that was one out of probably a couple thousand. I think that person probably just didn't understand they were filing. It's not like some members of the public always know what is going on.
DeleteExcept we can't just rat out attorneys to their state bars. As administration attorneys, we are actually barred from individually doing such a thing. SSA reserves that privilege for itself, and high levels at OGC decide such things.
DeleteHere's an example. A very long time ago when I was an AA in an ODAR (then) hearing office, one of our ALJs suspected a frequent flier rep from a major mill was withholding relevant (and harmful to their cases) medical records.
In hearing, he set this attorney up such that he caught them red handed in such a lie and intentional omission.
After he and I painstakingly wrote everything up and provided all the dead to rights evidence, the response from OGC was "well this is the first time you've caught them doing this, right?"
Not one thing happened to that attorney or firm and had I dropped the dime myself I would have likely been disciplined severely for taking the agency's prerogative into my own hands.
If I happen to be on another call and the FO reaches my voice mail, they log it as a failed attempt. Next thing I see is a letter dropping the issue.
ReplyDelete@ 10:47
ReplyDeleteBingo. The Federal Courts don't require the hoops because they are only dealing with attorneys. Attorneys have something very valuable to lose for misconduct (the ability to practice law). Either get rid of non-attorney representatives or eliminate the verification requirements when attorneys are entering. Require yearly proof of good standing by a state bar. I'm certainly not going to risk losing my license to make 7,200 or even 100,000.
The bottom line is we just don’t have the staffing or the time to process the work.
ReplyDeleteThe culture at SSA hates attorneys inside or outside.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI work in a SSA payment service center. When I process an Administrative Law Judge favorable decision, I usually have to wade through multiple fee agreements and SSA1696's, only to find that several of them are duplicates. It would help if the attorneys try to avoid submitting multiple forms,. It would help if the Field Offices would stop placing the duplicates into EVIEW.
Also the FO has pretty much stopped linking multiple attorneys on RASR. So I have to do it myself, in order to split the fee. More time spent.
We had a meeting this week with managers, they want "increased productivity". Cases moved. Unfortunately this leads to more mistakes. Quantity over quality.
GN 03910.040b4 defines the requirement that SSA has a “pending matter” to accept an appointment of representative. The problem seems to be how SSA defines a “pending “matter” to not include 3rd party iclaims until they are either returned signed by the claimant or attested to by the field office by recontacting the claimant. I believe this is the policy that should be the focus of getting the bottleneck resolved, as it’s a nightmare for both Fo employees and attorneys.
DeleteCorrect, third party filings are not considered “filed” until we either attest with the NH or get the signature page.
DeleteIf neither happens after the required requests, the iclaim is deleted like it never existed.
I think it's a poor policy to delete claims we can't verify with the claimant. I manclear mine and do an RPOC staring what went on or didn't. I have found that works much better when the attorney calls asking for status rather than saying we have no proof of claim as ever even filed. That can also eliminate having the attorney complete another disability report. Yes, it is not following policy but I found my policy works much better for me when I was doing nothing but third-party claims.
Delete1:57
ReplyDeleteexactly lol. To add onto this, I've had NUMEROUS claimant's tell me that their rep told them not to communicate with SSA and to let them (the rep) handle everything! Ok, so the rep files paperwork and SSA needs to talk to the claimant to attest the filing. The claimant listens to their rep and doesn't say a word (never answers their phone) to SSA. SSA has just lets the claim sit or deletes it because it's not a valid application because it was filed by a third party and not attested. 2-3 weeks later, the attorney's assistants call the local FO asking status, so someone has to tell them that there is no pending claim and the reason why nothing has been done with it, because no one can contact the claimant. So the rep submits the claim/paperwork again and SSA has to try to reach the claimant again. Maybe they answer, maybe they don't. Imagine how many man hours have been spent on this one claim ALONE. Now multiply that by 1200 FO's (or the WSUs) with employees trying to handle these claims.
A senior bureaucrat needs to take a look at this. Federal Courts do not contact the claimant to verify representation. SSA has the hammer of disqualifying rpes. who violat the rules. The incidence of abuse is infinteaimal. SSA needs to ELIMINATE this procedure for 5 years and see what happens. We are wasting resources for a problem that does not exist.
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy. Someone high up needs to make a bold decision to eliminate this bottleneck.
In response to 1055 Im not sure why you think the rep will magically be able to make the claimant respond. It is very difficult for us to maintain communications despite our best efforts.
ReplyDeleteThat is often part of the claimants disability.
I don’t believe they suggested any magic being involved. Simply let them know what to expect after the application is filed. Tell them to expect a call, tell them to return a call to the office if a message was left, tell them to return the signed application when they get it in the mail. That should take about 30 seconds.
DeleteSo now we’re at an impasse correct? You can’t maintain contact as the rep and we can get in contact as the agency. So now what?
DeleteMost often reps don’t even have the information we need to process the claims in the first place. Claimants mistakenly thing the rep can handle all of the questions and that’s simply untrue.
After interviewing claimants for 20 years, they of ten aren’t reliable sources of their own information.
I think the frustration is when the representative or their office says don't talk to SSA. I don't find that the case very often but when it does happen it's a mess. Maybe we're just trying to get information for an 821 or something else that we need in order to send the claim to DDS.
DeleteWith the exception of Allsup, reps don’t know how, or just don’t complete 821’s.
DeleteOr the reps do it wrong. Just recently asked for work after an alleged onset date, the rep sent the 821 back will all the employees PRIOR to the onset.
DeleteIt’s like they didn’t even read the form. Not helpful to me or their client.
aThe Social Security Act and associated regulations have conferred the right to representation to claimants. At some point, SSA's failure to process documentation to recognize a duly appointed representative becomes a violation of that right. I am not sure at what point that becomes an actionable matter.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine showing up to represent a client at a civil or criminal matter and being told by the clerk of courts that you cannot do your job because they haven't been able to process your paperwork yet. That's not a thing. If courts across this country, from the smallest municipality to the largest metropolois or federal district are able to allow attorneys to do their jobs without interference, SSA should be able to work out a system as well, and stop denying people their right to be represented.
My local office has only recently failed to upload my appointment forms timely once. I called until it was done. Calling the claimant to verify an electronic signature is probably a good idea but otherwise unnecessary. I refuse to use the electronic signature on the fee agreement and the 1696 and disagree with it.
ReplyDelete@10:14
ReplyDeleteWell what is stopping SSA from changing the attorney sanction policies? And how would making the attorney appointment process more efficient impact ethical conduct? I do not see how these issues are remotely connected. By definition the attorney would need to be appointed to commit ethical and regulatory violations, so what is your point...that unethical attorneys will get away with fraudulent appointments with zero consequences? I think you are missing an important player in this situation--the client. There is nothing stopping a client from reporting the fraudulent attorney to the bar and/or SSA.
I am not sure you understand the scale of these appointment errors, and the difficulties they create for both the claimant and their attorney. I had a recent case where a max $7,200 attorney fee was mistakenly paid to a national firm that had no involvement in the new application I filed for my client. SSA never notified our office or the claimant that they were keeping the national firm as the primary rep, because that non-attorney rep firm had represented him in a prior app that resulted in a non-medical denial. Our firm filed the new application, and the Recon appeal. We submitted a claimant signed representative discharge request 3 times by fax and also attached it to the Recon appeal. Despite acknowledging our representative status by letter, SSA not only failed to discharge the prior rep, but paid them the entire fee without copying our office on the Notice of Award. 7 months later my client still has not received his past due benefit award, and SSA appears to have ignored my multiple request to address the attorney fee error.
@1045. As an FO employee, I am embarrassed that so many coworkers have not done an adequate job processing attorney forms. It is annoying when many duplicate forms are submitted from the same attorney but I realize our poor performance is the reason for that.
DeleteIt would be beneficial if attorney representation was automatically ended on the system within say 120 days from the last denial so payments are made in error to a prior attorney.
The problem isnt always the Atty. I will say that out loud and mean it. A lot of them have no real idea what is being sent out of the office or how responses are being made back to SSA. They are hiring former retail workers, for low wages, giving them some "training" and they are doing the filings and sending all the stuff, because the atty time is to valuable to do those mundane claim things. So the atty gets what they pay for, a claim to count and a 50/50 chance, the office worker gets to not wear a uniform and work in an office, and SSA deals with people that dont know how the system works.
ReplyDeleteNobody outside of SSA knows how the system works. Everybody thinks they do, and spout all kinds of proclamations from on high, but when you ask them they have never once worked a claim from the SSA sign. I know, I have done both, worked for SSA and went to work for a DIB mill for a while.
@10:53
ReplyDeleteWhen did you last work for SSA? I am a single attorney with two support staff that I directly oversee. I am extremely involved in attorney appointment issues, and the problem is that many workers within SSA do not understand how the system works. SSA attorney appointment errors have increased exponentially since 2020. There is nothing complicated about faxing in appropriate attorney appointment forms, and it should not take skilled staff to complete this routine administrative task.
I routinely have to intervene myself in these attorney appointment issues. I have encountered numerous variations of appointment errors...which again begs the question -- why is the process itself designed to be complicated and require double/triple entry into different systems.
Your mistaken proclamation that no one outside SSA understands the appointment process support's the argument that this process needs to be revised. Attorney appointment in virtual every other legal setting is far less complicated, less error prone, and less time consuming.
@11:43
ReplyDeleteThe situation was a bit more complicated because we filed the new application within the 60 day appeal window for the prior non-medical denial. My client claims he was not even aware of the prior app and attorney appointment from a national firm, but I do believe he was unaware of the denial...because SSA does not notify attorneys and claimants via mail about non-medical app denials.
The POM for attorney appointment and discharge is too complicated, and open to interpretation. I have not been able to get SSA to address what I see as the correct interpretation of the POM. They simply claim that prior reps ALWAYS remain the primary rep on file if a new application is filed within the 60 day appeal window. That is not at all what the POM indicates, and they also failed to follow specific procedures that are clearly outlined by the POM. I will need to appeal when a revised Notice of Award is finally issued. I am not splitting a fee with a national firm that did zero work to get my client approved.
@1219 I have been in a non disability unit lately but when I processed disability claims I recall the disability report showing the representative on record and asking if that information is correct. Of course the new attorney information should have been uploaded to the file and input into the system.
DeleteI have seen cases where an attorney from many years before was put on a new claim because SSA failed to terminate him or her on RASR.
One of the major flaws is that even if the input is done timely, SSA still needs to advise DDS of the attorney appointment. There's a simple update that has to be done. CRs/CSs can make a request on WAC that will tell them which claims have changed that should be sent to DDS. But one has to have time to run it on WAC and then make the updates.
We do notify claimants and reps of non-medical denials. Some generate automated notices while others require manual notices.
DeleteSounds like your’s may have needed a manual notice and the rep failed to issue it.
In addition, POMs requires a new 1696 for each new claim’ even if it’s the same rep. If you submitted rep paperwork with the new claim, it should have been honored.
Lots of mistakes due to short staffing and new employees with substandard training.
@ 4:28
ReplyDeleteI cannot remember the last time our office received any type of notice for a non-medical denial. Clients with online portal accounts will get notified, and some SSA staffers have the decency of reaching out by phone to request what they are looking for before denying the claim, but many times we find out 2-3 months after the denial when we call the FO. They are closing these claims within a month of the initial application filing, with no apparent attempt to contact the client or our office. When our attorney forms are processed after the non-med denial, no one thinks to notify us that the claim was already denied.
We are also being sent non-nonsensical 821 form requests. This past month, we were asked to provide payment records for a client going back to 2013 -- despite the 2022 alleged onset date. When we called the SSA FO staffer that had called my client asking for this information, he had zero idea why they needed info going back to 2013. He was just following orders. We had to speak to another SSA staffer to find out this request had been made in error, and they only needed payment info for the year of his alleged onset date.
Honestly I think the new under-trained employees are biggest problem. I would rather face a delay in processing, then having to diagnose and fix the mistakes. It takes way more effort on our end to fix basic processing errors.
These case processing errors have filtered all the way up to Federal Court claims and proper handling of remands. Found out last week that a federal remand issued in March never made it to the Appeals Council. This is my clients second federal remand, and her case has been active since 2015!
Sounds about right.
DeleteI think DDS is trying to catch up on the backlog by getting FO’s to develop past relevant work. I haven’t really seen it requested at this frequency in all my 13 years in the field. The POMS even acknowledges that DDS usually does this but can ask the FO for help. DI 25005.015. It’s crazy to think I’m going to have to develop work on nearly every case that makes it to step 4. What FO has time for all this extra work development? I’m in South Florida so I’m curious what other regions are getting bombarded with all these work developments before the AOD?
ReplyDeleteI’m in Ohio and have seen the same thing here.
DeleteSSA officials seem to always choose the most risk adverse and compliance orientated policy, even when that policy is clearly not mandated by statute
ReplyDeleteWhy can’t we devise a way to let attys be able to input to RASR themselves with some kind of security or verification control…oh well whatever…
Because here’s what would happen. You’d input your own information in RASR. The agency would the require it to “verified” by speaking to the claimant before processing it. And who do you think they’ll ask to verify it? Yep, the same overwhelmed FO staff that isn’t inputting it timely now. So good luck with that.
DeleteGotta love a well oiled machine like the federal government!!