Showing posts sorted by date for query 144. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query 144. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Dec 14, 2020

Video Hearing Stats

      Social Security has posted numbers showing how many video hearings it has held recently. These are hearings where the claimant is at home connecting via a laptop, tablet computer or cell phone. The numbers are confusing since it includes a column purporting to show the number of in-person hearings being held but that's not the case. No in-person hearings have been held since March. Maybe that column is actually the number of telephone hearings? 
     Obviously, this is very uneven. I don't know what accounts for some offices holding no video hearings while others have held many video hearings.
     I wish that the agency would show totals per region and nationally.

 Hearing Office                                  In-person(?)   Video    Total

Posted by Charles T. Hall at 11 comments:
Labels: , ,

Apr 29, 2011

Good Report On iClaims For Retirement Cases

From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (footnotes omitted):
At an April 15, 2010 hearing before the House of Representatives’ Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, Congressman Xavier Becerra asked the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to review the iClaim application to ensure individuals filing for benefits using the iClaim application were receiving an appropriate level of service from SSA.

To address Congressman Becerra’s request, we selected a random sample of 250 RIB [Retirement Insurance Benefits] iClaim applications filed in May 2010.

We surveyed the SSA [Social Security Administration] employees who processed the RIB iClaim applications to determine the number of times the Agency had to re-contact individuals for additional information or clarification and the reasons for the re-contacts. We also obtained the employees’ perceptions of the iClaim application process. Finally, we reviewed 50 of the RIB iClaim applications from our sample to determine whether the information provided by the individuals in their iClaim applications corresponded with the information recorded in SSA’s system that was used to determine individuals’ eligibility for benefits and their benefit amounts. ...

SSA employees were generally positive regarding the amount of time it took to process an iClaim application. However, employees expressed concerns about the difficulty in re-contacting individuals.

In addition, we found that the information provided by individuals in their iClaim applications corresponded with the information recorded in SSA’s system. ...

Re-contacts with individuals are a necessary and important part of processing some iClaim applications. In fact, of the 245 individuals in our review who filed a RIB iClaim application, SSA re-contacted 144 individuals (59 percent) to obtain additional information or clarification. ...

While SSA employees had both positive and negative comments about the iClaim application, employees were generally positive about the amount of time it took to process an iClaim application. ... In fact, most employees responded iClaim applications were faster to process than in-person or telephone applications. Specifically, 62 percent of employees in our review stated iClaim applications were typically the fastest application type to process. ...

Although iClaim applications generally take the least amount of time to process, employees were concerned about the difficulty with re-contacting individuals. To fully develop the claim, we found employees had to re-contact individuals in our sample up to five times, for an average of two times per individual. ...

During our review of RIB iClaim applications, there were no indications that individuals filing for RIB using the iClaim application did not receive an appropriate level of service from SSA. In fact, SSA employees re-contacted more than half the individuals in our sample to obtain additional information or clarification. While employees raised concerns regarding some difficulty in re-contacting individuals, they also recognized that iClaim applications were typically faster to process than in-person or telephone applications. In addition, we found that the information individuals provide on their iClaim applications corresponded with the information in SSA’s system used to determine benefit eligibility and amount.
Note carefully that this was a study of the retirement claims, which are, by far, the easiest claims to take. The report would be far more mixed if it were talking about survivor claims or disability claims. Supplemental Security Income claims cannot even be taken over the internet.
Posted by Charles T. Hall at 4 comments:
Labels: , ,

Jul 28, 2010

Fraud In Oklahoma

From the Tulsa World:
In the Tulsa-based Northern District of Oklahoma, there have been 16 indictments handed up since 2006 that have alleged Social Security fraud such as using money meant for dead beneficiaries, disability fraud, claim-related false statements and even aggravated identity theft involving Social Security number misuse.

It's far from just a local problem. The agency's Office of Investigations conducts thousands of criminal probes every year. ...

Jonathan L. Lasher is Assistant Inspector General for the External Relations in the Office of the Inspector General [OIG]. He said investigations into suspected fraud start in a variety of ways, including from tips from the public and from OIG auditors who often come across potential crimes in their reviews of Social Security operations. ...

The agency reported to Congress earlier this year that from Oct. 1, 2009, through March 31, more than $15.5 million was recovered and that almost $144 million was saved as a result of investigations that led to improperly received benefits being shut off. ...

Lasher said the number of fraud allegations the Social Security Administration receives is relatively consistent from year to year.

But Lasher said he believes investigators' "vigilance has made it consistently more difficult to obtain and retain benefits to which an individual is not entitled."
Posted by Charles T. Hall at No comments:
Labels:

Apr 7, 2008

Where The New ALJs Are Going -- And Why 135 New ALJs Instead of 144?





The Social Security Administration has posted a spreadsheet showing where the 135 newly hired Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are going. You have to have a spreadsheet program to open it from Social Security's website, but I have reproduced it above. Click on each page to see it full size.

By the way, it was only a little over a month ago that it was supposed to be 144 new ALJs. Why the slippage? It looks like Social Security offered jobs to 144 people, but only hired as many as accepted. After nine applicants turned them down, why did they not offer jobs to nine more applicants so they could hire the 144 they were talking about earlier? Was the talk about 144 ALJs being hired a bit misleading?

Posted by Charles T. Hall at 2 comments:
Labels:

Feb 26, 2008

Social Security Offering 144 ALJ Jobs

A news release from Social Security:

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, today announced that the agency has begun making offers to 144 of the 175 new Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) it will hire this fiscal year. Due to litigation and budget cuts, the agency has about ten percent fewer ALJs than it did a decade ago. During that same time, the number of cases waiting for a hearing decision has more than doubled.

“The hiring of these new ALJs is a critical step in our plan to reduce the backlog of disability cases,” Commissioner Astrue said. “They represent one of the largest investments in ALJs this agency has ever made. When these ALJs are fully-trained, and combined with the other steps we are taking, we will be able for the first time in this decade to reduce the number of cases waiting for a disability hearing. I can hardly wait for them to start.”

The new ALJs will be brought on board in phases with the first hires reporting for duty in April, when they will begin an intensive orientation and training program. While initially handling a reduced docket, newly hired ALJs should be scheduling a full docket of cases by the end of the year.

“I have been very impressed with the caliber of the candidates eager to take on the challenging role of a Social Security ALJ,” Commissioner Astrue noted. “These new ALJs are top-notch legally and comfortable working in an electronic environment, which is of utmost importance as we strive to increase the efficiency and productivity of our ALJ corps.”

Hiring of additional ALJs is only one component of the plan the agency has put in place to reduce the backlog of disability cases. The agency also continues to make progress in many other areas including opening the National Hearing Center, completing the nationwide roll-out of the Quick Disability Determination process, implementing compassionate allowances and eliminating aged cases. More information about Social Security’s plan is available at www.socialsecurity.gov/disability under the heading What’s New.

“In May of last year, I presented Congress with a detailed plan to reduce the backlog of disability cases,” Commissioner Astrue said. “I am pleased to report that, with the strong support of the President and Members of Congress from both parties, we have been able to move forward with that plan. I urge Congress to continue its support with timely action on the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for Social Security. A delay in fully funding the President’s request will undermine the many positive steps we have taken this year.”

Posted by Charles T. Hall at 5 comments:
Labels: ,

Jan 9, 2008

ALJ With Second Federal Job

At the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) conference a few months ago, Social Security Commissioner Astrue referred to a disciplinary action against an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who was holding down a second full time federal job. I had posted about this.

I have been contacted by the person whom Astrue must have been talking about, Kelly S. Jennings. Jennings has sent me the statement reproduced below. I have no personal knowledge of the situation. I think it is appropriate to post this statement here, since Astrue was publicly criticizing Jennings, even if Jennings' name was never mentioned.
In 1994 Kelly S. Jennings was appointed an Administrative Law Judge with the Social Security Administration and assigned to the Atlanta (GA) North ODAR.

From 2003 to 2005, official SSA statistics reveal ALJ Jennings was among the most productive ALJs in the Atlanta North ODAR with disability case dispositions of 249 in 2003, 395 in 2004, and 449 in 2005 for a 3 year disposition total of 1,093 cases. In addition, Judge Jennings heard 144 disability cases in 2003, 318 cases in 2004, and 309 cases in 2005 for a total of 771 disability cases heard from 2003 to 2005.

In 2003, Judge Jennings was also selected by SSA to serve as a Quality Assurance Review (“QAR”) ALJ. SSA placed Judge Jennings in a Flexi-place/Alternate Duty Station (“ADS”) status and sent him hundreds of disability cases and decisions issued by other SSA ALJs from SSA headquarters in Baltimore to review for legal sufficiency and quality purposes.

In January 2003 Judge Jennings, a Colonel in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps having served 25 years in the U.S. Army Reserve, was mobilized and deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (“OIF”). For his service in Iraq, Colonel Jennings was nominated for the Bronze Star Medal.

From 2003 to 2005 Judge Jennings provided military orders and leave requests on a continuing basis to the ATL North Hearing Office Chief ALJ (“HOCALJ”) who knew of his mobilization and deployment in support of OIF.

The Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge (“RCALJ”) (“GARMON”) and the Associate Commissioner of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (“THURMOND”) were also aware Judge Jennings had been mobilized and deployed to Iraq.

SSA continued to send disability cases to Judge Jennings by email for review and decisions for editing even while he was deployed to Iraq and Kuwait.

When he redeployed from Iraq to the United States in order to attend and eventually graduate from the prestigious U.S. Army War College, Judge Jennings would at periodic times use a combination of accrued/carryover annual/military/advanced leave and while in a Flexi-place/ADS work status conduct Social Security disability hearings and issue decisions.

Using accrued/carry over annual, military, and advanced leave, together with being placed in a Flexi-place/ADA work status by SSA, Judge Jennings continued to receive his salary from Social Security for the hearings conducted and disability case dispositions accomplished.

In 2007, nearly two years after having been released from active duty with the USAR and mobilized in support of OIF, an anonymous complaint was submitted to the SSA OIG, alleging Judge Jennings had received “dual income” from both Social Security and the USAR from 2003-2005.

In August 2007, Chief Judge Frank Cristaudo and Deputy Commissioner-ODAR Lisa DeSoto determined Judge Jennings was really not working for SSA as an ALJ from 2003-2005 due to his military status with the USAR as a mobilized reservist.

In August 2007, Cristaudo ordered the Time/Attendance (“T/A”) records of Judge Jennings retroactively amended for the years 2003-2005 in order to place him in a Leave Without Pay (“LWOP”) status and to revoke previously authorized and SSA management approved use of annual/military leave.

In November, 2007 SSA sent Judge Jennings a certified letter demanding repayment of SSA salary from 2003-2005 in the sum of $309,662.04 plus interest within 30 days.

Subsequently, in November and December 2007, SSA without notice to Judge Jennings invaded and confiscated $43,804.20 from his Thrift Savings Plan (“TSP”) account and $21,954.85 from his Federal Employee Retirement System (“FERS”) account despite the fact Judge Jennings had protested the $309,662.04 debt determination and had requested a hearing.

In August, 2007 Cristaudo and DeSoto suspended Judge Jennings from his duties as an ALJ and instituted an action with the MSPB to remove him from his position as an SSA ALJ.

The MSPB proceeding against Judge Jennings is pending and an MSPB Administrative Law Judge recently raised the question to SSA to the effect that if Judge Jennings was really not working for SSA as an ALJ from 2003-2005 as SSA contends, how he could legally hold 771 hearings and issue 1,093 disability decisions. This issue remains unresolved.

SSA has notified Judge Jennings his T/A and leave records for 2003 are lost and only partial T/A and leave records are available for 2004 and 2005. An SSA OIG audit confirmed the 2003 T/A records for Atlanta North ALJs were missing and cannot be located.

The SSA action before the MSPB has been set for hearing in March, 2008 on the question of whether the facts support removal of Judge Jennings from his position as an SSA ALJ. Judge Jennings has been forced to spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees, costs, and other expenses to defend himself against the MSPB action.

Mean while, the number of disability cases pending for hearing in the Atlanta North ODAR has climbed above 13,000 as one of the worst pending in the Nation.
Posted by Charles T. Hall at 2 comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)