No Politicking At SSA

From the Baltimore Sun:

... The Merit Systems Protection Board, for instance, overturned a lower court ruling favorable to two former Social Security Administration employees, who forwarded e-mails revealing their allegiances while at work in the agency's Kansas City, Mo., field office.

The first e-mail, from Leslye Sims was titled "FW: Fwd: Fw: Why I am Supporting John Kerry for President" Sims began her e-mail with "Some things to ponder ..." and then copied and pasted a pro-Kerry letter from John Eisenhower, son of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower. ...

Sims e-mailed the letter to 22 people, including colleague Michael Davis, who responded to 27 people with an e-mail tagged, "FW: Your Vote." The message contained a graphic of a button with a flag background and President George W. Bush's face in the center. Above his head were the words "I vote" and below "the Bible." The message questioned Kerry's morals and leadership skills.

...The addressees on both e-mails were not identical and included people not working for the federal government, but Smith said they clearly were improper.

Ana Galindo-Marrone, chief of the Hatch Act unit at the Office of Special Counsel, explained the rules this way.

"E-mails on duty or while in a federal building directed at the success or failure of a candidate, party or political organization are prohibited," she said. "Employees opining on the Iraq war or abortion, even though they may be issues in a hot race, are permitted -- unless they're specifically tied back to a candidate or party."

ALJ Joe R. Hooper Dies

Greenville Online reports that Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joe R. Hooper of Greenville, SC has died. His funeral is set for Tuesday, March 26.

SSA Responds To Media Attention?

The Charlotte Observer has reported on the severe backlogs affecting Social Security claimants who ask for an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing. They are now reporting in a new article that one of the claimants whose name appeared in the article has just been approved by an ALJ.

One thing not mentioned in the article, but which has been a topic of conversation among local Social Security attorneys, is that both the Charlotte and Greensboro, NC hearing offices have recently shipped out a large number of cases to be heard by ALJs from other offices. Those claimants will receive video hearings. Perhaps not coincidentally, a television station that serves an area covered by both the Charlotte and Greensboro hearing offices is preparing a story on Social Security backlogs. The only other hearing office in North Carolina, Raleigh, has nearly as big a backlog as Charlotte and Greensboro and the Raleigh backlog is growing much more rapidly than the backlogs in Charlotte and Greensboro, but no cases have yet been transferred out of the Raleigh hearing office.

Poll

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Proposed New Regulation

From today's Federal Register:

We propose to revise our regulations to codify two provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that affect the payment of benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act). One of the provisions extended temporary institutionalization benefits to children receiving SSI benefits who enter private medical treatment facilities and who otherwise would be ineligible for temporary institutionalization benefits because of private insurance coverage. The other provision replaced obsolete terminology in the Act that referred to particular kinds of medical facilities and substituted a broader, more descriptive term.

Results Of Last Week's Unscientific Poll

How do you rate the chances of former Commissioner Barnhart's Disability Service Improvement plan being implemented nationally?

Almost certain (2)	2%
More likely than not (4)	4%
Some chance (21)	19%
Little chance (39)	36%
No chance (42)	39%

Total Votes: 108

An Image From The 1980s

Odd And Surprising Decision From the Sixth Circuit

Thanks to Eric Schnaufer for posting links to federal appellate decisions in Social Security cases. Here are some excerpts from Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security, issued on March 21, which I would characterize as an odd and surprising decision that suggests that some federal judges look for ways to dispose of Social Security cases without hearing them:

Cook appealed to the SSA’s Appeals Council, which issued a notice of denial of review dated July 27, 2005. This notice was sent to Cook by regular mail in an envelope bearing a postmark of July 28, 2005 ... On Monday, October 3, 2005, Cook filed a complaint in federal district court, appealing the Appeals Council’s denial of review. ...

Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Cook had 60 days from the Appeals Council’s notice of denial in which to file his appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (“When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.”). But he also had a five-day “grace period” before the 60 days began to run, which reflects the SSA’s rebuttable presumption that he received his notice of denial within five days of the date of the notice. 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c). Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when the final day of an appeals period falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, then those days are excluded in computing the time period. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3). If the appeals period ended on a weekend day, the appellant accordingly would have until the following Monday in which to timely file. ...

But Cook urges us to calculate the five-day period from the date of mailing, represented by the postmark date, rather than from the date on the notice itself. Unlike the facts in McKentry, however, Cook does not deny that he received the Appeals Council’s notice. He instead argues that the district court miscalculated the applicable review period because the notice was not actually postmarked until July 28, 2005, even though the first page of the notice bears a date of July 27, 2005. ...

Contrary to Cook’s argument, this court has consistently calculated the filing period from the date on the notice itself. See, e.g., McKentry, 655 F.2d at 724; Harris, No. 01-3522, 25 F. App’x at 273-74. This is in keeping with the applicable regulations. Cook has presented no persuasive argument for deviating from this interpretation. His complaint filed on Monday, October 3, 2005, was thus one day late.