Above is a part of the new form SSA-1696 used to appoint a person as a Social Security claimant's attorney. Notice that it asks for the names of Social Security numbers of the claimant's dependents. This was not required in the past.
Obtaining this information isn't as easy as one might thing. Parents don't have the Social Security numbers of their children handy. Fathers who are estranged from the mothers of their children may find it impossible to come up with the Social Security numbers. Social Security itself isn't trying to gather the Social Security numbers of dependents at the time a claim is filed.
What's the point of this? Does Social Security want to play a gotcha game, refusing to pay a fee on dependent benefits unless the name and Social Security number are listed properly?
21 comments:
The TII application doesn't even require a claimant to list the aux SSN(s). This will be a nightmare if it plays a role in authorizing fees. Bring back the 1 page 1696.
https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/oasi/39/SSR68-61-oasi-39.html
The recent Chief Judge's Bulletin on incomplete 1696s https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/reference.nsf/links/12092024065715AM suggests that the form wouldn't be considered incomplete if that section weren't filled out.
It's good to get the kids on the RASR Attorney system as soon as possible.
Otherwise the FO often fails to withhold the 25% attorney fee from the aux claimants, when they process the aux awards.
Then the attorney rep isn't paid their full fee. This also creates a headache for the payment centers, who have to follow time consuming "failure to withhold" procedures if the aux awards were processed without the proper fee being withheld. .
We are entitled to a fee regardless. I have yet to find anything addressing that the kids NEED to be on the 1696, but of course that doesn't mean SSA won't use that excuse. As far as this new form, we are already getting pushback for submitting the old version. They are saying they can't take it already which is absurd. Thoughts on this? https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/reference.nsf/links/12092024065715AM
FOs often do not account for the atty fee when the aux claims are processed. My guess is that this prevents failure to withhold from happening because the system will see that atty fee is involved if the kids are already linked.
FFS. This is a safeguard to ensure that attorneys get paid for the AUX claim, not an insidious conspiracy.
To the prior comment, just because an attorney rep is entitled to a fee doesn't mean you will be notified if a child's claim is filed later on. As you're probably well aware, clerical mistakes are made too frequently in field offices and program service centers, not necessarily due to negligence but also in large part thanks to the lack of IT upgrades. The comment before yours is accurate because children's claims get taken regularly and our system has minimal safeguards to notify the adjudicator that an attorney was present on the worker's claim. Therefore, it is possible for a child's claim to be awarded and paid out without even notifying the worker's attorney. This field for you to OPTIONALLY add the SSN of a child is more of a guarantee for attorneys to be paid if you add the child's SSN ahead of time, so that when loaded properly, it will prevent us from paying the child without first paying the attorney. It also sends automated notices to the attorney alerting them that a child's claim has been awarded. I've made it a habit to ask the worker for the child's SSN or at least the name and DOB (so I can find the SSN) so that this is taken care of beforehand and leads to fewer mistakes.
9:23 has it right. In practice, yes we are entitled to the aux fee solely based on the standard fee agreement. But shocking news, some field offices do not follow POM procedure, and this will serve as a reminder, while also making the task easier to complete in RASR at the beginning of the claim/attorney assignment. The two FOs that handle the majority of our firm's claims regularly screw this up. During peak COVID we struggled to get our attorney info inputted within RASR for the primary beneficiary!
Of course they don’t NEED to be. When I worked in a FO years ago, a lot of the forms received from reps were incomplete, especially paper T16 apps and the 3368. Why start now? More than once I called someone who was approved to take the application for the child and was told “I have several children, my rep just told me to list one and SSA would add the other ones later.” Good job on the protective filing.
Yeah, terrible to expect reps to get basic information from a claimant they represent. That's just sooo much wooork. Can't someone else do it?
What makes you think we are "getting it" anyway? I can't "get" a clients "basic info," they need to provide it. They will be placing it onto the form, which is totally fine by me. The problem is absolutely going to be plenty of people at SSA using it contrary to its intended purpose, and claiming we are not owed a fee if the children's info is missing on the document.
Just like iClaims or paper SSA-16 or SSA-8000 applications that are submitted with erroneous or missing information, any form that is incomplete and/or inaccurate will cause delays and more headaches for SSA. If every form is accurate and every field filled in, it should be processed accurately and quickly the first time around. When we have conflicting statements or missing information on a form, that results in delays to the client and the attorney rep, which leads to more phone calls, faxes, mail and unnecessary work for an understaffed agency. SSA is just trying to save all parties more work on the back end by adding the child's field on this single form.
This is it. Too much missing information in initial Disability claims. Too many applications with no spouse or children ssn's. Contrary to popular belief, we don't have magic wands to find these numbers. Our systems are weak.
Social Security does not want to play a "gotcha game." They want to avoid playing a game of phone tag tracking down these ssn's. Better to think of it as an opportunity to provide clarifying information upfront.
Our local OHO just told us they were told to stop processing rep paperwork for now because everyone was doing it incorrectly, and they need more training
I wonder how my telework is going to be affected?
We received an email yesterday we can start processing again. I want the good old days when reps had to get their money from claimants and we at SSA were not glorified cashiers.
I believe this comes from the agency obsoleting the Form SSA-1695 and including relevant information from this collection instrument in the Form SSA-1696. See Final Rule published at 89 FR 67542, Changes to the Administrative Rules for Claimant Representation and Provisions for Direct Payment to Entities. The Form SSA-1695 collected the name and SSN of other claimants being represented in connection with the claim.
Considering FOs receive duplicate application packets via mail, fax, in person, carrier pigeon etc you’d think this wouldn’t be a big deal for your folks. More stuff to send over half completed ( twice or even thrice!) !!!
To 7:57 Yes, the good old days prior to 1965 since that was when attorney fee withholding began, basically to limit what attorneys would charge from the then common 33% or more and as a tradeoff, Social Security would withhold and pay approve fees in Title II cases. Of course, not in Title XVI because that didn't exist until 1984 and the change to withhold those fees and pay directly came well after that.
Is anyone else having issues where the State Agency is demanding new 1696s for cases that have already been processed? My client is already at Recon and just had a CE done, so it's hardly a "new" case
Post a Comment