The notice reproduced below was filed by Social Security on Friday. I understand there will be more developments in the Conn cases in the near future. As always, click on the images to view full size.
@3:15 I mean, you basically just paraphrased the actual legal definition of substantial evidence. Not say that's right, but yeah SSA's position is in line with most courts these days.
It's like "existential" threat. The word sounds big and important, but it simply means it exists. So, the treat of creating a black hole in that Swiss physics collider was considered an "existential threat." But. when used to describe everything, it eventually means nothing. As for "substantial evidence" as a legal standard instead of preponderance of the evidence, it essentially allows judges to make any decision they wish to. In Daugherty's case, he could justify 95% pay rate even on scant proof. On the other hand, 10 or 20% payers could essentially employ a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The AC, Federal Judges, and Circuit Courts will almost always back them up, no matter how absurd their conclusions or VE testimony is. (Especially 8th and 5th)
Responding re the statistics. There were two groups of claimants identified in this fiasco, some in 2015 and some in 2018, a total of around 3600 people (plus their auxiliary beneficiaries, etc.) The 6th Circuit found that SSA knew about all of this by 2006 and yet did nothing until identifying people for "redetermination" in 2015, then the 2018 group. Definintely not the "immediate" redetermination required in the statute. Bottom line, all of these folks will be given waivers. For benefits going forward, however, they will be treated differently depending on whether or not they have had an ALJ decision on redetermination yet. All of the 2015 group did, and about 1/2 were found disabled; the ones who were not are more or less stuck with appealing that decision through the normal processes. (Although about 500 are members of a class action that will be treated differently.) The 2015 group had to "travel back in time" and prove they were disabled as of the date of the Conn ALJ decision, with no consideration of anything that had happened in the interim. Most of the 2018 group did not have hearings, and they will be allowed to stay on benefits if they can show current disability. There is still a lot to be explained on how this process will work for those folks. Most of them have long-expired dates last insured.
This is the most humane thing the agency has done about this mess. An ALJ induced an attorney to make shit up to justify paying everyone, without the client's knowledge or consent. The ALJ knew the only way to really do this and avoid suspicion was to manufacture medical evidence, even though most of those decisions were 3 pages long, contained no rationale, and made no sense. Because SSA cares only about number of dispositions out the door, this was feasible and lauded as efficient.
It is not the claimant's fault the agency engaged in a conspiracy to cover up this conspiracy for years instead of dealing criminally with the actual perpetrators of a longstanding fraud scheme; they were patsies, left holding the bag because the other guys robbed the bank paying the claimant. Several claimants have died as a result of the agency's redetermination actions. This is truly the least SSA can do for people they traumatized for like 15 years at this point if we are counting the expose as day one.
That shows you how much 'reviewing' the Appeals Council does, it would seem if you get a bunch of cases from one place and the decisions are all 3 pages with no rationale, you might want to start doing some reviewing. Sad that it took 2 OHO workers having to go to an anti-social security legislator to get something done.
"Substantial evidence" is apparently a term that means, substantially, nothing or almost nothing.
ReplyDelete@3:15 I mean, you basically just paraphrased the actual legal definition of substantial evidence. Not say that's right, but yeah SSA's position is in line with most courts these days.
DeleteIt's like "existential" threat. The word sounds big and important, but it simply means it exists. So, the treat of creating a black hole in that Swiss physics collider was considered an "existential threat." But. when used to describe everything, it eventually means nothing.
DeleteAs for "substantial evidence" as a legal standard instead of preponderance of the evidence, it essentially allows judges to make any decision they wish to. In Daugherty's case, he could justify 95% pay rate even on scant proof. On the other hand, 10 or 20% payers could essentially employ a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The AC, Federal Judges, and Circuit Courts will almost always back them up, no matter how absurd their conclusions or VE testimony is. (Especially 8th and 5th)
Do we have any numbers on people terminated and people continued on disability? How many people will this affect?
ReplyDeleteResponding re the statistics. There were two groups of claimants identified in this fiasco, some in 2015 and some in 2018, a total of around 3600 people (plus their auxiliary beneficiaries, etc.) The 6th Circuit found that SSA knew about all of this by 2006 and yet did nothing until identifying people for "redetermination" in 2015, then the 2018 group. Definintely not the "immediate" redetermination required in the statute. Bottom line, all of these folks will be given waivers. For benefits going forward, however, they will be treated differently depending on whether or not they have had an ALJ decision on redetermination yet. All of the 2015 group did, and about 1/2 were found disabled; the ones who were not are more or less stuck with appealing that decision through the normal processes. (Although about 500 are members of a class action that will be treated differently.) The 2015 group had to "travel back in time" and prove they were disabled as of the date of the Conn ALJ decision, with no consideration of anything that had happened in the interim. Most of the 2018 group did not have hearings, and they will be allowed to stay on benefits if they can show current disability. There is still a lot to be explained on how this process will work for those folks. Most of them have long-expired dates last insured.
ReplyDeleteThis is the most humane thing the agency has done about this mess. An ALJ induced an attorney to make shit up to justify paying everyone, without the client's knowledge or consent. The ALJ knew the only way to really do this and avoid suspicion was to manufacture medical evidence, even though most of those decisions were 3 pages long, contained no rationale, and made no sense. Because SSA cares only about number of dispositions out the door, this was feasible and lauded as efficient.
ReplyDeleteIt is not the claimant's fault the agency engaged in a conspiracy to cover up this conspiracy for years instead of dealing criminally with the actual perpetrators of a longstanding fraud scheme; they were patsies, left holding the bag because the other guys robbed the bank paying the claimant. Several claimants have died as a result of the agency's redetermination actions. This is truly the least SSA can do for people they traumatized for like 15 years at this point if we are counting the expose as day one.
That shows you how much 'reviewing' the Appeals Council does, it would seem if you get a bunch of cases from one place and the decisions are all 3 pages with no rationale, you might want to start doing some reviewing. Sad that it took 2 OHO workers having to go to an anti-social security legislator to get something done.
ReplyDelete