But We've Really Been Pressed By Republicans In Congress To Do Something!

     From the Lexington Herald-Dispatch:

The Social Security Administration has until 5 p.m. Thursday to respond to attorneys who seek an injunction to block the immediate suspension of disability benefits to more than 900 people, according to a court order entered Wednesday. ...

U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar scheduled a telephonic hearing on the injunction for 3 p.m. Friday.

[The attorney's] motion, filed late Tuesday, linked as many as three suicides to the suspension notices. He first learned of an Ivel, Ky., man's death, whose widow he cited in saying the client shot himself Monday. ...

U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins, R-W.Va., and U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., called upon Social Security to give each person more time to provide medical records to support their original claim, according to letters sent to Social Security's Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin. ...

I Have A Feeling

     Why do I have a feeling that Social Security management expects the U.S. District Court to enter a preliminary injunction preventing the agency from summarily cutting off disability benefits to 900 of Eric Conn's former clients and that agency management will be relieved when that happens?

Today's Congressional Hearing

     Here's the witness list for the hearing at 10:00 EDT before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee:

Panel 1

• Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX)
  Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)
  Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA)
  Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
  Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY)
  Rep. Jim Renacci (R-OH)
  Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)

Panel 2

• Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr., Inspector General, Social Security Administration
• Dan Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, Government Accountability Office
• Curt Eysink, Executive Director, Louisiana Workforce Commission
• Debra Rohlman, Vice President of Government Sales, Equifax Workforce Solutions
• Rebecca Vallas, Director of Policy for Poverty to Prosperity Program, Center for American Progress

     Let me explain one thing. The Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over Supplemental Security Income but not Social Security which has its own Subcommittee. Occasionally the two Subcommittees hold joint hearings but this isn't a joint hearing. There may be testimony today touching on Social Security but this Subcommittee can't advance legislation dealing with Social Security.

Take It Up With The Department Of Justice

     From the summary of a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

Between February 1962 and January 2015, SSA paid $20.2 million in benefits to 133 individuals alleged, or found, to have participated in Nazi persecution. This occurred because the Social Security Act did not prohibit the payment of most of these benefits when they were paid. The $20.2 million in payments included $14.5 million paid to 95 beneficiaries who were not deported and $5.7 million paid to 38 beneficiaries who were deported. 

Ways And Means Schedules Hearing For Wednesday

     From a press release:

Today, Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R-LA) announced that the subcommittee will hold a hearing titled, “Protecting the Safety Net from Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.” The hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 3 ...  

In view of the limited time available, oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include Members of Congress with reform proposals as well as experts on the operation of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs. ... 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Boustany stated, “The SSI and UI programs annually waste billions of dollars due to improper payment rates that average around 10 percent year after year. It’s long past time that we identify the causes and start implementing real reforms to improve the integrity of these programs. That will benefit taxpayers, but especially those who most need this assistance.”

Class Action Lawsuit Over Terminations Of Benefits

     A class action lawsuit has been brought against the Social Security Administration over the termination of benefits which had been going to approximately 900 firmer clients of Eric Conn. 

     Meanwhile the Lexington Herald-Leader has run an editorial criticizing Social Security for cutting off these benefits but not prosecuting Conn. It's not just me who finds it peculiar that the evidence exists to justify summarily cutting 900 people off benefits but the evidence doesn't exist to suspend Conn from practicing before Social Security, a civil matter which would only require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, much less to bring criminal charges against him. Social Security can yell "It's fraud! It's fraud!" all they want but this doesn't make sense.

A Recruiting Poster

Legal Action Under Way In Eric Conn's Cases

     Some of Eric Conn's clients are suing him. There's also talk of seeking a court order to prevent Social Security from summarily cutting off benefit payments to 900 of Conn's former clients.

Exactly How Is Social Security Trying To Cut 900 Former Clients Of Eric Conn Off Disability Benefits?

     I'm curious about exactly how the Social Security Administration is approaching the 900 or so cases in Kentucky and West Virginia in which it is trying to take away disability benefits from claimants who had been represented by Eric Conn. I wonder if some reader knows how, procedurally, the agency is doing this.

     Here are the possibilities that come to my mind and the problems associated with those possibilities:

• Reopening under 20 C.F.R. §§404.988(b) and 404.989 due to new and material evidence that some medical reports submitted by Conn were phony. This would be limited to cases where the initial determination (not the ALJ decision) was issued in the last four years. The argument could be made that Social Security already knew that the medical reports were phony. I don't know for sure but I suspect that the local ALJs would testify that everybody already knew, at least in rough terms, what was going on. Of course, if the ALJ decision relied upon the allegedly phony report, this might not matter. I suppose this is the most likely route. The claimants could still prove they were disabled anyway and most probably would.
• Reopening under 20 C.F.R. §404.988(c)(1) on the grounds that the favorable decisions were obtained by "fraud or similar fault." If Social Security has proof of "fraud or similar fault" how is Eric Conn still practicing before the agency?
• Termination of benefits under 20 C.F.R. §404.1579(d)(3) based upon a determination that the original decision putting the claimant on benefits was "in error." The problems here are that benefits could not be terminated retroactively without meeting the criteria specified above for reopening, the claimants would be eligible for interim benefits while they appealed their terminations and the agency would bear the burden of proving the "error."

     I know that all this may sound like a bunch of legalese but Social Security has to follow its own rules. You'll notice from what I've posted earlier and from many of the comments on my post that most lawyers think that cutting these folks off benefits is no slam dunk. There are reasons that Social Security is just now getting trying to do this. And remember, Social Security won't have an attorney present at any ALJ hearings on these issues and the attorneys representing these claimants will keep asking again and again why Social Security is going after the claimants but not going after Eric Conn directly.

     Update: This newspaper article suggests that Social Security is taking the third route, termination, since the 10 day window to get interim benefits applies only to terminations.

Claimants Caught In The Crossfire

     From the Lexington Herald-Dispatch:

The Social Security Administration confirmed Wednesday its review of disability benefits for approximately 1,500 cases, all tied to Kentucky attorney Eric C. Conn and former Social Security administrative judge David B. Daugherty.

The action suspends Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits to more than 900 individuals and their auxiliaries, while payment to others receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or a combination of both will continue as the review proceeds.

     Let me explain why Social Security's action is problematic. Eric Conn isn't guilty because 60 Minutes and a Congressional committee say he's guilty. The Social Security Administration has to bring charges against him, either to indict him for a crime and then convict him or to bring an action to suspend him from practicing before the agency and succeed in getting him suspended. Conn hasn't been indicted. So far, he hasn't been suspended from practicing before the agency. Social Security doesn't have the evidence to go after Eric Conn. However, the agency does have the evidence to summarily cut 900 people off benefits?
     Even if we assume that Conn is guilty as sin, that doesn't mean that his clients are guilty of anything or that they weren't disabled. What is alleged is that Conn got phony reports from doctors. Probably, his clients were unaware that Conn was doing anything wrong. More important, even if they were aware that Conn was doing something wrong, they may still be disabled. The allegation is that Conn was routinely obtaining and submitting phony medical reports on his clients. Adding a phony medical report to a file doesn't negate all the other evidence in the file. In most cases Conn would have been gilding the lily.
     From the point of view of an experienced Social Security attorney, what Conn is alleged to have done was just stupid. He was going to win most of the cases anyway. Obviously phony evidence might have impressed an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or two but it would have antagonized many other ALJs. His alleged scheme would have cost a lot of money, been of dubious utility and subjected him to a big criminal risk. Instead of trying to make a living representing Social Security claimants, Conn is alleged to have used illegal means to try to make a killing. Bad career move.
     I worry that the claimants whose benefits are being cut off are being caught in a crossfire. Social Security wants to destroy Conn. Cutting many of his former clients off benefits will probably destroy Conn's ability to get new clients. Social Security can also demand back the attorney fees that Conn has received in those cases, destroying Conn financially. Conn may have it coming but I doubt that his former clients deserve this treatment.