Social Security Finally Acknowledges That Phony Mailing Dates Are A Problem

    The dates that Social Security places on its outgoing mail are mostly fictitious. Most outgoing mail is printed and mailed from a central printing operation that serves the entire agency.  This correspondence bears the date upon which some agency employee sent it to be printed but the date printed and mailed is actually several days later. 

    There are time limits to file appeals. If these time limits are based upon a date that is several days prior to the date that the correspondence was actually mailed, the claimant is being cheated out of those days to file an appeal. Appeals can be dismissed -- and have been dismissed -- based upon these phony dates.

    Social Security has finally acknowledged the problem. The agency's HALLEX manual for hearings and appeals has been amended. Now, notices sent out centrally will be presumed to have been sent out three days later than the date they bear.  This is in addition to the five days given for the mail itself.

    I have not seen this changed in the POMS manual that serves the whole agency but maybe I've missed it. It's needed there since appeals also get dismissed at field offices and payment centers. 

    Wouldn't it be simpler to put accurate dates on these notices to begin with? This doesn't seem to be a problem beyond the limits of human ingenuity. 

Inconsistencies In Handling Of Critical Cases

     From SSA Expedited Most Critical Cases at Hearings Level but Lacks Consistent Policy Implementation, a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO):

The Social Security Administration (SSA) flags a disability appeals case as critical after determining that the claimant’s health or financial condition, such as having a terminal illness or dire financial need, meets criteria in SSA’s policy manual. Cases can be flagged as critical before reaching a hearing office or during nearly any stage of the hearing process. SSA policy directs staff to expedite the case once it is flagged as critical. However, staff GAO interviewed from three of the five selected offices said that claimants must provide documentation of their dire financial need, even though SSA policy does not require it. 

Hearing offices consistently processed critical cases faster than non-critical cases between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, but wait times varied depending on when the case was first flagged. Cases that arrived at a hearing office with a flag took a median 201 days to reach a hearing decision; those first flagged while they were at a hearing office took a median 351 days. This difference exists because hearing offices quickly begin work on flagged cases. In contrast, non-critical cases took a median 469 days (see figure). GAO found that, across the stages of the hearings process, critical cases flagged after reaching a hearing office spent the largest portion of the wait time in the stage before being assigned to a case worker. Once flagged during this waiting period, hearing office staff assigned most cases to a case worker within a week. ...

    I wish they'd also look at expediting below the request for hearing level. Where appropriate, I help clients file critical case requests regardless of level. There's supposed to be expediting at the initial and reconsideration levels but I see little sign that it's happening. Backlogs at the initial and reconsideration levels are far worse than at the hearing level at least where I'm practicing.

    Also, it would help if the agency came up with its own form for requesting critical case status. My impression is that Social Security employees are often unsure of what to do with a request that doesn't arrive on an official Social Security form.

Was Social Security Actually Issuing Decisions On Christmas Day?

     My firm has gotten two or three decisions supposedly issued by Social Security on December 25, 2019. I'd call that a dead giveaway that the dates that the agency puts on decisions are at best an approximation of the date they're actually mailed. I don't think anyone but a few security guards and computer people were working at Social Security that day and no one could have mailed a decision because the mail doesn't run on Christmas day. 

     I think this has to do with centralized printing and mailing. My guess is that the people actually making the decisions just put artificial dates on them assuming they'll be printed and mailed within, let's say, three days after they're ready to go out. Maybe the system does this automatically. Sometimes the printing and mailing people get it out on that date. Sometimes they get it out earlier; sometimes later. Who cares? Claimants have a fixed length of time to file appeals based upon when a decision is mailed. When it comes to appeal rights Social Security takes the dates on its decisions quite literally when it shouldn't

     Why is it that centralized printing and mailing is a good thing anyway?

iAppeals Down

     I have heard a number of reports this morning that Social Security's iAppeals system went down yesterday afternoon and is still down. I really wish the agency would make announcements about this sort of thing.
     Update: I'm told that Social Security is aware of the problem and working on it. I'm told that they may not have even been aware of the problem until well into today. That's pretty amazing.

Social Security Ruling 19-3p

     Social Security Ruling 19-3p will be in the Federal Register tomorrow. It's on requesting reconsideration or a hearing. The regulations require that these appeals be in writing. The Ruling, as best I can tell on a first reading, is designed to make it clear that the agency considers an appeal filed through its online systems to be in "writing."

LTD Industry Take On Social Security Subcommittee Hearing

     People like me who represent disability claimants may think that we're the only ones interested in how the Social Security Administration handles appeals of disability claims but that's not right. Some non-profits are interested but so are insurance companies handling long term disability (LTD) benefits.  LTD is generally reduced because of Social Security disability benefits received giving the LTD insurers a huge interest in the adjudication of Social Security disability claims. The more claims get approved, the less their liability.

     Allison Bell has written an article summarizing what took place at this week's hearing before the Social Security Subcommittee, apparently for people in the LTD industry.

Reinstating Recon Unpopular

     From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

In an effort to reduce its massive backlog of disability determination appeals, the Social Security Administration plans to reinstate an additional step in the appeals process for Pennsylvania and nine other states.

Social Security officials say the extra step — called reconsideration — would create a more uniform system across the country and help the administration reach its goal of resolving disability appeals within 270 days. Critics have said it could have the opposite effect, possibly lengthening the appeals process.

“While some people might get a decision sooner under reconsideration, for others this step is effectively a rubber stamp of the initial decision,” Rep. Sam Johnson (R., Texas),  who serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Social Security subcommittee, said during a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday. “It simply further delays their hearing with an administrative law judge.” ...