From a press release:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) plans to raise the fee cap for claimants’ representatives, from $7,200 to $9,200, when they and their client agree to use what is known as a “fee agreement process.” This will be the first increase to the fee agreement cap since November 2022, when the cap went up from $6,000 to $7,200, after remaining the same for thirteen years.
The fee cap increase is scheduled to take effect this Fall. The agency also plans to tie future increases to the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). SSA will publish notice of this change in the Federal Register in April in advance of the effective date. ...
16 comments:
28% increase for a two-year period? This is far above the inflation rate.
Also, I don't think it's a good idea to adjust the cap every year. Because SSA technicians working the claims will have to spend more time checking dates and adjusting paragraphs, due to the frequent fee cap changes. We already have too much work and too little time.
There will be more mistakes on the fee cap. Necessitating time-consuming failure to withhold situations for small amounts of money, if someone processes an award without the latest adjustment for the fee cap.
Yes!!!
@10:04, it's once a year. If someone can't adjust to something that simple, they should not be in that position.
@ 10:04. All that would need to be looked at is the date the fee agreement was approved.
As to a 28% increase in 2 years, sure, but you need to be looking at it from a more historical view where the cap wasnt increased for 13 years, and when it was, it wasnt adjusted based on inflation over that period.
at 10:04 - "frequent" fee cap changes?? At most, this change will happen once per year. First, most of the fees won't be close to the cap anyway, so nothing else will change on those cases. If the total backpay is 20k, you don't need to worry about the "current" cap because it won't matter. On those cases that may be close to the current cap, all you have to do is take 30 seconds to read the fee agreement...if it says 25% and capped (at an old cap like $6000), then you pay $6000. IF the fee agreement says the fee is 25% of the backpay BUT ALSO has language that the cap will depend on the applicable amount at the time the favorable decision is made (or something to that effect) then the "current" cap would apply. In which case, you should have that current cap number on a big sticky note by the computer. It will literally take someone 30 extra seconds of actually reading the fee agreement.
But they are and that’s the problem.
This will probably have a negative impact on representation
...okay, so I can't be the only one who thought this was a cruel April Fool's joke from Charles.
This is a nice change, but getting rid of the 5-month wait period for DIB would make a bigger difference for both claimants and reps, as most cases are not going to approach the fee cap. Also, the 5-month wait period is just ridiculous.
It's no April Fool's joke. Thanks, NOSSCR!
5:08 I agree. I think we're about to see more incompetent representation enter the representative pool chasing what they think are 9k fees then they'll find out the average is far less.
@10:00
Not as pessimistic about rep quality. We already have quite a few large national firms that provide sub-par representation. New entrants will likely be personal injury or Workers comp firms with overlapping claims/clients. But when they discover the nightmare off SSA bureaucracy, I do not think a 9k fee is all that attractive (especially for a minority of cases).
I cannot imagine starting a pure SSD firm in this environment without prior experience.
Yet VEs have not had a fee increase in years. The next effect of last contract (2020) was decreased fees for a typical day of hearings. And yet VEs are highly experienced, highly educated and required in adult cases. We deserve an increase in the upcoming contract (2025) or I'm afraid there will be a significant decrease in qualified individuals willing to do this work. This will harm claimants. I believe NOSSCR should join us in advocating for such an increase. (From a VE with 21 years of testimony experience)
I am still puzzled as to while fee petitions need to be adjudicated at the OHO level. This seems rather administrative that can be done more locally. Any thoughts?
This is good news but I expect a dramatic increase in solicitation AND dishonesty in said solicitation. I hope to see regulation and sanctions on “national firms,” lead generators, and “advocates.”
We need more reps in the game, and the low fees are why we have so few. Few reps do CDRs because there is no money, and those are the cases that are lost error prone in my experience.
Post a Comment