The Supreme Court has declined to hear one of the Conn cases. The issue in this case is the statutory provision requiring that the agency act “immediately” when it detects fraud. In the Conn cases the agency didn’t act for 15 years. Did this failure give affected claimants who were not themselves guilty of fraud (their lawyer, Eric Conn, was the one who did that) a get out of jail free card? The lower courts didn’t buy that argument and the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.
5 comments:
The Supreme Court is concentrating on bigger conservative issues while they are still the majority.
This one is ripe for a do-over after the downfall of Chevron deference. What the word “immediately” means in the context of a conspiracy by the government itself to delay the discovery of the fraud until its hand was forced is a hell of a question presented and SSA won’t win.
It was a dumb argument to begin with. They aren’t even griping that the agency dragged its feet once it discovered the fraud. Just that it’s not fair that the agency tool so long to figure out the scheme. Where does the regulation say the agency has to act immediately once it‘s conceivable that it could have probably detected the fraud and identified all affected proceedings if optimally funded/staffed and exercising an optimal level of care? It doesn’t.
7:59, a couple points. First, the circuit holding that the Conn claimants couldn't obtain relief for SSA's failure to "immediately" redetermine benefits wasn't based on Chevron deference. Second, Chevron was already dead when NOSSCR filed its amicus brief. Why would the fall of Chevron persuade the Supreme Court to provide another bite at the apple?
That whole case really was detrimental to the clients of his that were actually disabled. They really needed to handle that whole case another way rather than just cutting off EVERYONE all at once. Unless claimants were in on the scam, then it's on Conn that needs to suffer the consequences. Get outta jail free on claimants? Sure, if they had no idea what he was doing. If they did, they deserve just as long in prison, an I personally think a person should be banned from ever collecting SSA (until retirement) if they are convicted of fraud. Would certainly cut down on claimant fraud (tho low on that end, contrary to popular belief in DC).
Post a Comment