Let me circle back to the article I posted about yesterday concerning a man being asked to repay money allegedly overpaid in 1978. Here's a part of the article I didn't quote yesterday (emphasis added):
Byrd's father died when he was 4 years old. So his mother received social security for him while he was a minor.
"This is not money I ever saw. I was not even living at home at the time," he said.
This suggests how the overpayment occurred. His mother wasn't entitled to the child's benefits she received on him because he wasn't living with her. So how is this an overpayment to him? His mother took money from him. He was the one injured back in 1978 and you're now compounding the injury by trying to force him to repay money that was taken from him?
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0202250150
ReplyDeleteHe would have a good argument for having it waived based on "equity and good conscience" given that information. I have stated this multiple times on this forum, SSA employees are somehow expected to know every nook and cranny or policy or else they are a failure, apparently. Likely he talked to a CSR who doesn't handle overpayments, or maybe a new employee who hasn't done many overpayments. Someone doesn't start at SSA and know everything day one. Most employees STILL don't know certain policy until they come about a case where they need to look/ask. Much of this can be solved by simplifying policy but again, SSA management is too busy doing inconsequential shit to do that.
I had a similar issue with one of my children, they drew on their father's record when he became disabled. When he signed up, there was a failure to acknowledge his disabled child who was drawing SSI. When the SSI child qualified for social security years later, my children were deemed overpaid. The youngest had a large overpayment and we had some wrangling to get that waived. He was without fault, but he was considered able to repay. The other children got out of it more easily. He was owed child support he never got, so I considered this recovery doubly unfair, but we were ready to appeal this as much as we had to. Some of these overpayment recoupments are too agressive.
ReplyDeleteA payee does not have to live with the person receiving benefits.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly most of these cases are generated completely by computer programs originating out of the PSC. An appeal would have to be filed, using equity and good conscience or other applicable reasons and forwarded to the PSC for decision. Not sure if FO can overturn but perhaps things have changed.
ReplyDeleteAn appeal is going nowhere. This needs to be a waiver.
DeleteAs stated in the very first comment, this most like can and should be waived.
Title 2 has what’s called contingent liability which means anyone receiving benefits on the record and any point in time can be held liable for another beneficiary’s overpayment.
This is why proper waiver development is crucial.
@10:59
ReplyDeleteYou are assuming the accused received benefits on the record. The facts are that the child never did.
Lets say someone is the victim of identity theft and someone got benefits fraudulently on the victim's number. Can SSA go after the victim for the overpayment? Should the victim seek a waiver as well as appeal, or just seek a waiver?
I didn’t assume anything. I explained “contingent liability”.
DeleteSo say BIC A was the victim of identity theft in the past but is now deceased and has an OP on the record.
His divorced spouse is now of age to collect widows benefits on the record and files.
They then tack the OP on to her widows benefit because they cannot collect it from the deceased.
The best bet would be a waiver. Why? She’s not at fault in causing the OP and most likely (depending on her income) could be found unable to repay.
If she files an appeal, what documentation would she have to support her allegation that the OP is not valid? What if she doesn’t even know identity theft was involved and if they were divorced, she may not have any knowledge at all of the deceased’s affairs.
An appeal is a waste of time. File the waiver. The appeal would sit in limbo for who knows how long before ultimately being denied for lack of evidence.
@1:39
ReplyDelete11:26 here. An appeal is not a waste of time, as you do so in the same action you seek the waiver. It's one process. If the ALJ rejects the appeal, ok, you still have the waiver argument. First paragraph of brief; the overpayment is invalid because...; Second paragraph of brief; if the overpayment is found to be valid, waiver is appropriate because...
Is the victim of identity theft, by a stranger, whose benefits were improperly distributed to that stranger, legally responsible for repaying those benefits improperly distributed to that stranger?
If your answer is yes, well that's horrifying but I understand your position.
If your answer is no, then what is the distinction? Other than presuming the individual was "receiving benefits" as you did state in your prior post. And if you meant the child, now a retiree or disabled individual is NOW receiving benefits; okay, why shouldn't the overpayment be passed to an unrelated individual? If it's just a matter of arbitrarily imposing a hardship, seems harsh to impose a hardship against an individual in the present on the sole basis that the same individual experienced a hardship (the lack of benefits they were entitled to) in the past.
My point was who is proving the identity theft in my example?
DeleteIs on the divorced widow to prove identity theft of a deceased NH?
If so, that’s ridiculous. The waive is more sensible and easier to approve.
We already know she isn’t at fault for the overpayment. So step one is already done unless she’s the one that stole his identity.
Proving she doesn’t have the ability to repay may or may not be as easy depending on her financial circumstances.
An appeal would do what? We already know she didn’t cause the circumstances surrounding the overpayment. That’s why she’s contingently liable.
Specifically in the example in the article, the waiver would be the best option as in most any case of contingent liability. Why? Because once the over payment is waived, it’s gone…it doesn’t exist. If an appeal is magically approved, the government will surely try and get that overpayment in the future somehow.
The government’s answer to you question is a resounding “yes”. Personally, I think it’s ridiculous as well but the government’s objective is to get the money repaid by whatever means necessary.
The solution is simple: In order to be responsible for another's overpayment, you dhould have to be found AT FAULT snd able to pay. If the other person is at fault and I'd deceased, SSA should only get reimbursement for what was inherited from their estate. Holding a person who wasn't at fault, didn't receive the money, or was a minor (let alone a 4 year old) at the time responsible is irresponsible and, frankly, criminal (even if legal).
ReplyDelete