Comgressional Hearing On Maximizing Social Security

     The Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing yesterday on Maximizing Your Social Security Benefits: What You Need to Know. A group of wealthy Senators were wondering why everyone doesn't wait until age 70 to claim their Social Security retirement benefits. Since there's a delayed retirement credit to encourage people to wait, the Senators figure it must be lack of information keeping people from waiting. There definitely is a lack of information. It's a longstanding frustration for me that most people think that Social Security is simple. No, it isn't. No program that pays benefits in many different categories to tens of millions of people could possibly be simple. Even when you try to tell people about the rules that affect them personally, their eyes start glazing over almost immediately. However, the real reason that people claim benefits earlier than some wealthy people think they should is economic necessity. Most people aren't wealthy like these Senators. They don't have the resources to survive more than a few months after retirement without Social Security. 

     Not that it matters to many people but the math on the delayed retirement credit isn't as wonderful as it's cracked up to be. You get 8% more a year for each year that you delay taking Social Security benefits but that's not compounded and it has to be stacked against the facts that you don't get paid Social Security for the years you waited and that you may die before any theoretical breakeven point or even before drawing Social Security retirement benefits at all. Even if you survive long enough, is it irrational to want to take the money when you're still young enough to be able to do something with it? Life is short. Eating dessert first may not always be a bad idea.

Re-Recon Back?

     I got this recently. Is this a sign of the new re-recon? If it is, I don't expect it to amount to much. This sort of thing doesn't seem like a priority. Even if it were, the staffing isn't there to do much.

     By the way, notice that "DDS Case Number." It wasn't the claimant's Social Security number. Is this a sign that Social Security itself will start moving away from the use of the Social Security number as much as possible?

Social Security Employee Refuses To "Certify Sin"

     From the Washington Post:

A short video about lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual diversity may bring an abrupt end to a federal employee’s 14-year career with the Social Security Administration. David Hall, who works in information technology at the agency’s office in Champaign, Ill., refused to watch the 17-minute video on several occasions.  

Hall told the News-Gazette that the mandate to watch the video first came in April, when the national office sent out an email memo regarding LGBT diversity and inclusivity training. ...

For Hall, that premise was too sinful. The 42-year-old, who identifies as Christian, said he does not believe God would have wanted him to watch the video. Signing a statement he had watched such a video, moreover, was equal to endorsing “an abomination,” he told WCIA. “I’m not going to certify sin.” ... 

On two occasions in June, Hall’s boss told him to watch the video. When Hall declined, he was reprimanded. He later received a two-day suspension, in August, without pay. ... 

Hall is willing to lose his job — he admits it is likely, in fact — and he sees his stance as a call to other Christians. ...

Major Social Security Staff Losses In Many States

ALJs Are Supposed To Schedule 45-50 Hearings A Month

An e-mail from Social Security's Chief Administrative Law Judge Debra Bice:

Jack and I have spoken with many of you over the last few months and know that you share ODAR’s commitment to public service by providing claimants with timely and policy compliant dispositions. You also have shared some of the challenges you face in doing so. We are aware of the challenges you have been facing, even more so now with the hiring freeze. We are working on many initiatives to help support you, such as new regulations, pre-hearing conferences and case summaries of large files.

Given the current environment, you have asked how many cases we expect every judge to schedule each month. Looking at current data, a majority of you are scheduling an average of 45-50 hearings a month and completing the work in a legally sufficient and policy compliant manner. I know that it takes dedication to manage your docket effectively and I thank each of you. I am asking EVERY judge to schedule hearings generally in the range of an average of 45-50 hearings per month. If you feel comfortable handling more cases and can maintain legal sufficiency and policy compliance in your dispositions, please continue to do, and we thank you. If are not yet scheduling an average of 45-50 cases a month, please try to increase your dockets to do so. This may mean adding a day of hearings every month or an additional hearing to each hearing day. We will continue to evaluate our scheduling expectations for all judges in the future.

For those of you who elect to telework, I am going to advise our HOCALJs that, for the October 2016 to March 2017 telework period, an average of 45-50 scheduled hearings a month generally should be considered “reasonably attainable.” I am also going to discuss again with our HOCALJs the need to consider all extenuating circumstances in considering your telework requests.

This is a crisis time for us. Even with all the headwinds in our face, the public we serve is asking us to do the most we can. I am so proud of all of you. If all judges generally can schedule an average of 45-50 hearings a month or more, hold those hearings absent good cause, and move the cases out of ALJ controlled status timely, we can make headway in reducing the wait time for a decision. I speak for your national leaders, your RCALJs and certainly your HOCALJs. All of us, ALL OF US, are appreciative of all you do. I know sometimes our messages do not always reflect that appreciation, but make no mistake - it is unwavering. Judge Allen and I are proud to be your judicial colleagues.

New Attorney Fee Contacts

     Social Security has updated its list of Office of General Counsel contacts for fee authorizations, other than those under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) -- 406(b) fees.

Regional Office	Jurisdictions	Contact Information
REGION I Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel JFK Federal Building 15 New Sudbury Street Room 625 Boston, MA 02203-0002	MA, ME, MI , NH, RI	Phone: (617) 565-4277 Fax: (617) 565-4447
REGION II Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel 26 Federal Plaza Room 3904 New York, NY 10278-0004	CT, NY, PR, VI, VT	Phone: (212) 264-3650 Fax: (212) 264-6372
REGION III Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel 300 Spring Garden Street 6th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19123-2932	DC, DE, PA, MD NC, NJ, SC, VA, WV	Phone: (215) 597-3300 Fax: (215) 597-4662
REGION IV Social Security Administration Office of the Regional Counsel Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Suite 20T45 Atlanta, GA 30303-8910	MD AL, ND AL, FL, GA	Phone: (404) 562-1028 Fax: (404) 562-1030
REGION V Social Security Administration Office of the Regional Counsel 200 West Adams Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-5208	IL, IN, OH, WD KY,WI	Phone: (877) 800-7578 Fax: (312) 886-4754
REGION VI Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel 1301 Young Street, A-702 Dallas, TX 75202-5433-5433	AR, IA, LA, MN, MS, NE ND, SD, TX	Phone: (214) 767-3212 Fax: (214) 767-9189
REGION VII Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel Richard Bolling Federal Building 601 East 12th Street Room 965 Kansas City, MO 64106-2898	MO, TN	Phone: (816) 936-5750 Fax: (816) 936-5963 ||KC OGC
REGION VIII Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel 1961 Stout Street Suite 4169 Denver, CO 80202-4003	CO, KS, ED KY, NM, OK, UT, WY	Phone: (303) 844-0018 Fax: (303) 844-0770
REGION IX Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel 160 Spear Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105-1545	CA, NV, HI, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Island	Phone: (415) 977-8943 Fax: (415) 744-0134
REGION X Social Security Administration Office of Regional Counsel 701 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900, M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075	AK, AZ, ID, OR, WA	Phone: (206) 615-2539  Fax: (206) 615-2531 ^OGC SEA Admin
BALTIMORE Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel 6401 Security Boulevard Room 617 Altmeyer Building Baltimore, MD 21235–6401	MD, SD AL, ED NC, WD NC	Phone: (410) 965-0600 Fax: (410) 597–1435

---

GN 03930 TN 10 - Fee Authorization Under the Fee Petition Process - 09/01/2016

Airport Workers Keep Their Social Security

     From KTVI:

Nearly 70 employees at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport were relieved to learn they'll get to keep their Social Security benefits.

In May, the airport workers were informed that despite paying into the Social Security system that they were ineligible to receive those benefits because of a decades-old agreement between the state of Missouri and the Social Security Administration.

On Wednesday, Senator Claire McCaskill helped police, city, union, and Social Security officials reach an agreement allowing the workers to keep their benefits. ...

     This reminds me of a case in North Carolina. A new interstate agency was formed that included employees from North Carolina and Virginia, if I remember correctly. Several employees of the state of North Carolina transferred to work at the new interstate agency. Before doing so they received written assurance from the agency that administers pensions for NC state employees that they would continue to be covered by the NC state employee pension plan. Some years later, when the first of these employees retired, he was told, sorry, we made a mistake. Employees of intergovernmental agencies aren't covered by the N.C. government employees pension plan. Here's your contributions back. Goodbye. When they complained it wasn't fair, they were told that the courts had refused to recognize estoppel against the state of North Carolina so, in effect, shut up and go away. If estoppel were applied, the state couldn't argue that the interstate employees weren't covered by the pension plan since the state had told the employees years earlier that they were covered and the employees had relied on this promise. The employees took the case to court and won. The N. C. courts held that estoppel would be applied. The moral of this is that if you're a government agency, don't rely too much on old precedent. If the courts think you're really trying to screw over people, they'll find a way to give those people relief. 

I Wouldn't Regard This As A Good Sign If I Was Social Security's Attorney

     From an order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky:

On September 8, 2016, the Court held a telephone conference to schedule and to prepare for oral argument on the Social Security Administration (SSA)’s motions to dismiss. Ned Pillersdorf, Francis E. Budde, and Kelly Lynn Ward Wallen represented the plaintiffs, with Mr. Pillersdorf speaking for that side. Amanda B. Gilman, John S. Osborne, III, and Laura Ridgell - Boltz represented the SSA, with Ms. Gilman speaking for that side. ...

Although the plaintiffs have brought a number of claims against the SSA, the Court is focused on one at the moment: whether the SSA’s redetermination procedures violated the Due Process Clause. That question involves many smaller — but nevertheless difficult — ones, some of which are listed below. As it tries to figure those question s out, the Court would benefit from further briefing and an oral argument. The parties agreed that an in-person argument would work the best. That argument is set for Wednesday, September 21, 2 2016, at 11:00 a.m., at the United States District Courthouse in Pikeville, Kentucky. The parties will submit further briefing by Friday, September 16, 2016. 

In preparing their briefs and arguments, the parties should keep a few things in mind. First , at this stage, the Court is primarily concerned with the plaintiffs’ argument that the SSA failed to afford them due process. The plaintiffs also argue that the SSA applied its redetermination procedures in a prejudicial way — specifically, by initiating those procedures many years too late . To decide that claim, however, the Court first needs to know whether the procedures are constitutional to begin with. 

Second , the Court will construe the parties’ new briefs as cross - motions for summary judgment. The parties agree that the due - process issue depends largely on questions of law that can be resolved through briefing and argument. Plus, the SSA has attached affidavits to its motions to dismiss — when a party has presented such “matters outside the pleadings,” Rule 12 requires the Court to t reat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). This way, the Court can decide the due - process issue once and for all .

Third, and finally, the Court would appreciate briefs addressing the specific questions that are currently troubling it. As promised at the conference, those questions are listed here:

(1) How exactly, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(u), does the redetermination process work?

a. Where, in the text of the statute, does Congress create the “evidentiary rule” that when the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) finds fraud, parties cannot challenge the finding ?

b. Does Congress even have the power to dictate what evidence an administrative law judge may and may not consider? 

c. Assuming that Congress has that power — and used it in § 405(u) — does the Due Process Clause nevertheless require that parties get a chance to challenge agency evidentiary decisions?

d. What parts of the redetermination process are judicially reviewable?

(2) How did the redetermination process work in the plaintiffs’ cases specifically ?

a. Did the SSA follow §405(u) ?

b. When the OIG alerted the SSA about the fraud, did the SSA take as given that fraud had occurred in every case Eric Conn touched, or did it decide for itself whether fraud occurred in each case?

(3) Assuming that the SSA followed §405 (u), and assuming that under that section the OIG ’s fraud findings are unchallengeable , does the redetermination process violate Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)?

a. Did the plaintiffs get a chance to challenge the OIG finding?

b. If they did not, why don’t they deserve one?

(4) If the redetermination process violated the plaintiffs’ due-process rights, what is the proper remedy?

This list is not necessarily exhaustive. Other issues will certainly arise, and the Court will be grateful for the parties’ efforts to anticipate and address them. At the end of the day, however, the problem on the Court’s mind is whether the redetermination process afforded the plaintiffs due process, and if not, what to do about it.

The Binder And Binder Saga Goes On

     There's been an important filing in bankruptcy court in the matter of Binder & Binder. Read it yourself but it looks to me like Charlie Binder and Harry Binder as individuals (or through an entity controlled by the two of them) will be buying the Social Security assets of the Binder and Binder corporation for $3.5 million. Remember, Binder and Binder as a corporation is distinct legally from the two brothers as individuals.

NPRM On Evidence In Disability Claims

     What immediately jumps out at me from a 176 page Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) that Social Security is publishing in the Federal Register tomorrow:

• We propose to revise our rules in 20 CFR 404.1504 and 416.904 to state that we will not provide any analysis in our determinations and decisions about how we consider decisions made by other governmental agencies or nongovernmental entities that an individual is disabled, blind, or unemployable in any claim for disability or blindness under titles II and XVI of the Act , and that we are no t bound by those decisions. Although we would categorize decisions made by other governmental agencies or nongovernmental entities within the other medical evidence category if made by a medical source or a statement if made by a nonmedical source , we propose to state in 20 CFR 404.1520b and 416.920b that these decisions are inherently neither valuable nor persuasive to our disability and blindness determinations. ...
• [W]e propose to state in 20 CFR 404.1520b(c)(2) and 416.920b(c)( 2 ) that we will not provide any analysis about how we considered disability examiner findings from a prior level of adjudication ...
• Consistent with our goals to better define and organize our evidence regulations to produce more accurate and consistent determinations and decisions, we propose to define a statement on an issue reserved to the Commissioner as a statement that would direct the determination or decision of disability. ... Although a statement on an issue reserved to the Commissioner would be categorized within other medical evidence if made by a medical source or a statement if made by a nonmedical source, w e would not provide any analysis about how we consider ed such statements at all in our determinations and decisions . ...
• To help adjudicators, representatives, and courts identify statements on issues reserved to the Commissioner, we propose to include the following in 20 CFR 404.1520b(c)(3) and 416.920b(c)(3) : 

• statements that an individual is or is not disabled, blind, able to work, or able to perform regular or continuing work;  
• statements about whether or not an individual’s impairment(s) meets the duration requirement for disability; statements about whether or not an individual’s impairment(s) meets or equals any listing in the Listing of Impairments; 
• in title XVI child claims, statements about whether or not an individual’s impairment(s) functionally equals the Listings; 
• in adult claims, statements about what an individual’s RFC is using our programmatic terms about the functional exertional levels in Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 200.00 in stead of descriptions about his or her functional abilities and limitations ; 
• in adult claims, statements about whether or not a n individual’s RFC prevents him or her from doing past relevant work; 
• in adult claims, statements that an individual does or does not meet the requirements of a medical-vocational rule in Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 ; and  statements about whether or not a n individual's disability continues or ends when we conduct a continuing disability review (CDR) . ...

• In order to assist representatives and our adjudicators in interpreting our rules, we propose to revise our rules to state affirmatively our current policy that we will not use a diagnosis, medical opinion, or an individual's statement of symptoms to establish the existence of an impairment(s). We would clarify our rules to state that a physical or mental impairment must be established by objective medical evidence from an AMS. We would continue to follow our current policy if we have objective medical evidence from an AMS that a claimant has a severe impairment(s) at step 2, we will consider all evidence to determine the severity of the impairment(s) and all other findings in the sequential evaluation process. ...
• [W]e propose several revisions to how we consider medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings. First, we would no longer give a specific weight to medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings; this includes giving controlling weight to medical opinions from treating sources. Instead, we would consider the persuasiveness of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings using the factors described below. Second, we propose to consider supportability and consistency as the most important factors. Finally, we propose to reorganize the factors to: (1) list the supportability and consistency factors first, (2) include a "relationship with the claimant" factor that combines the content of the current examining relationship and treatment relationship factors, (3) list individually the three different factors currently combined as other factors, and (4) restate the factors using consistent sentence structure. ... 

     You would think in reading this that Social Security believes that the federal courts are packed with Republican appointees eager to go along with anything hostile to disability claimants. Good luck with that theory. If this is finally adopted, which is doubtful, expect it to be eviscerated by the federal courts.

New Mental Impairment Listings Approved But Won't Be Published Until December

     The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has finished reviewing Social Security's proposed amendments to the agency's Listings on mental illness and intellectual disability and has approved them. The Listings are a major part of Social Security's policies on evaluating mental illness in disability claims. 

     The process that produced this dates all the way back to 2003. This particular draft was first published in 2010. 

     This proposal has been extremely controversial. Normally, new regulations are published in the Federal Register within a week or two after OMB approval. They come into effect thereafter. However, Social Security recently told the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) that it was not planning to publish the revisions to the mental impairment Listings until December. This strongly suggests to me that the agency knows the new mental impairment Listings will be controversial and wishes to put off releasing them until after the election. They want to dump them in the Federal Register during the holiday season with the transition to a new administration underway. 

     I've been representing Social Security disability claimants since 1979. Disability claimants suffering from mental illness are being treated the worst now that they're been treated since about 1983. Claimants with intellectual disability are being treated worse now than at any time in my career. I expect the new Listings will try to crystallize the current restrictive policies. What a legacy for Carolyn Colvin.

Not Happy About Being Number One

      From WSOC-TV:

Thousands of people nationwide seeking disability assistance are waiting months, or even years, for Social Security to hear their cases.

The Charlotte review office has the biggest backlog of all the 170 offices across the nation.

The latest numbers show that Charlotte has 14,456 pending cases. People wait an average of 622 days for their appeals to be heard, almost 100 days more than the national average.

Randy van Hoosan's wife has multiple sclerosis and said that four years ago she realized she couldn't work anymore.

When she applied for disability, she was denied. He said she appealed in October 2014, but almost two years later she's still waiting for her appeal to be heard.

The couple filed bankruptcy in December. They said they lost their house, a car and "just live day to day." ...

They contacted U.S. Sen. Richard Burr's office and got a letter back last month, saying they should expect to wait another 18 to 24 month. ...

Wisconsin ALJ Taken Off Regular Duties Because Of Comments About Claimants

     From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Administrative law judge John H. Pleuss has been removed from the list of judges within the computer system at the Social Security’s Madison Office of Adjudication and Review, and all of his 60 cases through the end of 2016 have been reassigned, according to two whistle-blowers from the administration and a copy of the list provided to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. ...

Pleuss described disability claimants in his notes using shorthand phrases such as "very black, African looking woman (actually a gorilla-like appearance),” “buxom,” and "attractive; looks innocent,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and a conservative website, Wisconsin Watchdog, have reported. ...

Although Pleuss remains at the Madison office in some capacity, office director Laura Hodorowicz and group supervisor Wayne Gentz have both been removed from the hearing office and its directory, according to Holland, lead case technician Machelle Keller and a copy of the directory provided to the Journal Sentinel. ...

     Pleuss was approving 55% of the cases he heard.

That Two Factor Authentication Fiasco Was Even Worse Than You Thought

     Last month Social Security introduced two factor authentication for its online systems. Claimants would have to enter a password and then enter a second passcode delivered to them via a text message in order to enter Social Security's online systems. Social Security had to beat a hasty retreat two weeks later as senior citizens protested that they didn't have text access.

     As embarrassing as the two factor authentication seemed, the reality was even worse. Computerworld reveals that in the same month that Social Security introduced two factor authentication, the National Institute of Standards and Technology warned federal agencies not to use two factor authentication.

     Social Security is still requiring two factor authentication for attorneys using its online systems. Can we now dispense with that?

Happy Labor Day

Let Me Tell You A Story

     Let me tell you about a client. I'll change a few minor details to protect her identity but nothing that affects the account in a material way. We'll call my client Greta. Greta's mother was a German national. Her father was a U.S soldier stationed in Germany. Greta's mother didn't marry Greta's natural father. However, Greta's mother later married another U.S. soldier and moved to the United States with Greta when Greta was four. Greta hasn't been back to Germany since. She doesn't remember being there. She wonders whether a trip back to Germany would rekindle some memories. She speaks no German. She went to school in the United States. She got a Social Security card. She worked in the United States. She married and had children in the United States. She never tried to register to vote because she just wasn't interested. She never tried to get a passport because she didn't have the money to travel outside the country. There was never a problem until Greta applied for Social Security retirement benefits. At that point, it was discovered that Greta wasn't a citizen. What's more, she didn't have a green card. Although Greta came to the United States legally, she had become an illegal immigrant because the proper steps hadn't been taken to regularize her immigration status. This amazed Greta. She knew she was born in Germany but thought she had become an American citizen when she was a child. That's what should have happened. It would have been easy but her parents never did what they needed to do. While Greta has enough quarters of coverage to get Social Security retirement benefits, she can't be paid until Greta sorts out her immigration status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This will be done. INS isn't being difficult. They're sympathetic. They agree that she deserves a green card. She may even be entitled to citizenship without the normal formalities because she was brought to the United States as a child by her U.S. citizen stepfather. However, the INS is slow. Sorting this out will take well over a year.

     Donald Trump wants to throw all illegal immigrants out of the country. At the moment Greta is an illegal immigrant. Do you want to round up Greta, put her in detention and then deport her to Germany? Do you want to punish her for the negligence of her parents more than 50 years ago? Greta wasn't born in Mexico but what if she had been and had been brought to the U.S. by a stepfather who was a U.S. citizen? Would that affect how you feel about the situation?

CCD Opposes NPRM On Medical Evidence

     The Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), the largest umbrella group of organizations involved in advocating for persons with disabilities, has submitted comments on Social Security's Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) on ensuring program uniformity at Social Security. CCD opposes the changes for these reasons (which are elaborated on in the CCD letter):

1. Creating an arbitrary deadline for the submission of evidence is inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory duties of the Commissioner to fully develop the record and inconsistent with the duties of claimants to submit all evidence as required in 20 C.F.R. §404.1512 and §416.912.

2. Excluding material evidence is administratively inefficient and will increase appeals to the Appeals Council and to federal court.

3. The proposed rule ignores the reality that testimony, and sometimes new evidence, is routinely introduced at or after ALJ hearings, and claimants and representatives need the opportunity to respond.

4. Serious problems and inconsistencies exist with the implementation of the 5 business day rule in Region I.

Charlie Binder Has An Objection

     Below is a letter I have received from an attorney representing Charlie Binder. You can click on each thumbnail to see it full size.

     Binder is objecting to my post Proposed Rules Of Conduct For Appointed Representatives where I wrote that "This [proposal regulation] is just overkill. I'm not Eric Conn or Charlie Binder. Don't treat me like them. I don't deserve it." Binder feels that I have accused him of certain conduct that the proposal would ban and that I am associating him with the allegedly criminal behavior of Eric Conn. 

     I have no problem saying that I have no knowledge that Charlie Binder or anyone else at Binder and Binder has done anything illegal and that I don't know that this proposal would have any more effect upon Binder and Binder than it would have on my firm.  It would not have taken a three page letter from Binder's attorney to get me to say this. A simple e-mail from Binder himself would have been enough.

     My point in using the names of Eric Conn and Charlie Binder was not to say that their behavior has been the same or similar. My point was to express my concern that each, for different reasons, has generated negative attitudes towards Social Security attorneys on the part of upper Social Security management. I am concerned that these negative attitudes are behind recent Social Security regulatory actions. The issues at Binder and Binder, while not criminal, are magnified in importance by the prominence of that entity. I thought about going through the issues at Binder and Binder but decided there was no point. Almost all my readers already know enough about Binder and Binder to have their own opinions.

     The ironic thing is that Charlie Binder doesn't like to be lumped together with Eric Conn. I don't like being lumped together with either Conn or Binder.

Attorneys Responding To A Crisis

     Many attorneys from around the country responded to the call from AppalReD Legal Aid to help the former clients of Eric Conn who have found themselves faced with the challenge of proving all over again that they are disabled.  AppalReD has provided the following list of the attorneys who have helping these claimants.

     There's one other name that was inadvertently omitted from the list above, Christopher Bush of Kentucky. Also, it's Daniel Smith, not Danny Smith.

ALJ To Plead Guilty To Having Sex With Claimant

     From the Birmingham News:

A former Social Security Administration judge in Alabama allegedly had sex with a woman claimant at the federal court house in Tuscaloosa, according to charges involving a public official accepting a gratuity, theft, and obstruction filed against him Tuesday.

Paul Stribling Conger, Jr.,73, of Akron, Ala., also entered a plea agreement Tuesday with the U.S. Attorney's Office to the charges of theft of government property, obstructing justice, and accepting a gratuity, according to court documents. ...

In July 2013, Conger was presiding over the hearing of a claimant, a woman identified as T.M.

T.M. was subsequently approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, which included future monthly payments and retroactive benefits. In November 2013, T.M. discussed Conger with a mutual acquaintance of theirs, identified as Individual A.

"Individual A" related information to T.M. about Conger that led T.M. to approach Conger in an effort to receive her retroactive SSI benefits, totaling about $10,000  in a lump sum because T.M. needed the money all at once.

On Nov. 19, 2013, T.M. met Conger in his chambers at the federal courthouse in Tuscaloosa. T.M. was seeking to receive the retroactive SSI benefits she had been awarded in a lump sum. ...

At the federal courthouse, on that occasion, the two engaged in a sex act and other sexual contact. T.M. and Conger remained in communication by phone, including calls and text messages over the ensuing weeks. ...

During the month of December 2013, Conger met with and paid a person only identified as "Individual B" money to obtain T.M.'s phone and destroy it. Conger provided information from T.M.'s SSA files, including T.M.'s confidential medical information and social security account number, in order to assist Individual B in locating T.M. ...