Fraud Allegation In Montana

From MontanasNewsStation.com:

A Clyde Park woman is accused of lying to get Social Security benefits for 18 years. Sandra Bowman pleaded not guilty to federal fraud charges. ...

The indictment says Bowman falsely claimed she lived alone, or only with her child, when she was living with her common-law husband or boyfriend.

It also alleges Bowman claimed that no other person paid for her food, rent, taxes and utilities, when her boyfriend paid some or all of the bills, the indictment alleges.

Social Security Bulletin Released

The Social Security Administration has released the latest edition of the Social Security Bulletin. The Social Security Bulletin mostly contains statistical information and articles about statistical research on Social Security issues.

Totalization Agreement With Denmark Not Drawing Controversy

The United States and Denmark have signed a Social Security totalization agreement, according to an announcement from the U.S. Social Security Administration. The press announcement on this touts the fact that the agreement will eliminate double taxation, but it also allows workers to combine wage credits from both countries to obtain Social Security benefits.

Note that this totalization agreement is totally non-controversial, while the totalization agreement with Mexico has been totally controversial. Critics of the agreement with Mexico would point to the large number of Mexican citizens in the United States illegally as the reason for the different reception of the two agreements. Critics of those critics would point to the differences in skin hue between citizens of Denmark and Mexico as being the real reason. However, the two agreements are quite similar. If one objects vehemently to the agreement with Mexico, one should also object vehemently to the agreement with Denmark.

Monthly Social Security Stats

Social Security has issued its monthly statistical summary for Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act.

Interim Policy On EAJA Payments

Eric Schnaufer has been kind enough to post elsewhere a document that states the position of Social Security's Office of General Counsel (at least for the 4th Circuit area) on payment issues under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Claimants may obtain reimbursement for their attorney fees under EAJA for federal court cases in which they prevail. There have recently been serious issues about how EAJA fees are paid that have caused confusion and irritation to attorneys who represent Social Security claimants in federal court.

Bill Aims To Improve Customer Service

From a Social Security Legislative Bulletin:

House Passes H.R. 404, “ Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act ”

On July 23, 2007, the House passed H.R. 404, the Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act. On July 24, 2007, the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Among other provisions, the legislation would require the establishment of customer service standards for Federal agencies, including SSA.

Upon enactment, the House-passed bill would:

• Require the Comptroller General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to jointly develop performance measures and standards to determine whether Federal agencies are providing high quality customer service;

• Require the head of each Federal agency to collect information from its customers regarding the quality of its services and to include such information in the agency's Performance and Accountability Report;

• Direct the head of each Federal agency to assign an employee to be the customer relations representative of the agency;

• Require each Federal agency to include its address and phone number on any agency stationery. In the case of correspondence originating from a regional or local office, the agency would be required to include the address and phone number of the regional or local office on the stationery; and

• Require the Comptroller General to report on each agency's customer service performance no later than two years after enactment. The report could be used by Congress as well as the Director of OMB to update performance measures for customer service. Compliance with customer service standards would, to the extent practicable, be an element of each agency's performance appraisal system.

Trying To Straighten Out Earnings Record Results In Criminal Charge

From the Associated Press:

For five years Olivia Avila worked under a false name and bogus Social Security number at the National Beef meatpacking plant in Liberal to support her family. She kept working there after obtaining legal residency two years ago. But it was not until she went into the Social Security Administration to get credit for her earlier wages as an undocumented worker that her legal problems began — even though a loophole in federal law allows lawful immigrants to claim both legally and illegally earned wages in determining Social Security benefit eligibility. Avila, 51, was arrested at her job in June on six immigration-related counts after her visit to the Social Security Administration office in Wichita. Avila is now out on bond while awaiting her Oct. 16 trial on charges of using false documents to work in the United States and aggravated identity theft. ... At least two such recent immigration cases involving legal residents are now being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in , although such prosecutions remain relatively rare. Fewer than 10 cases involving legal immigrants claiming Social Security benefits for past illegal earnings were filed within the last couple of years in Kansas. ... Jonathan Lasher, spokesman for the Social Security Administration's Office of Inspector General, said such crimes are a "separate issue" from benefit eligibility. ... "The law currently does allow that if someone gains legal status so that they now have a Social Security number that is legal, and they are authorized to work in the United States, the law does allow them to go back and get credit for any earnings they may have," said Mark Lassiter, spokesman for the Social Security Administration.

Why Did This Case Have To Go To The Court Of Appeals?

From Costello v. Astrue, ___ F.3d ____ (7th Cir. 2007)

Florine Costello visited her local Social Security office in 1994 with a straightforward question: from which of her two ex-husbands could she collect the largest monthly benefit check? (Divorcees can draw retirement benefits on their former spouses’ earnings records. 42 U.S.C. §402(b).) Based on the advice she received, she applied for (and received) benefits for which, it turns out, she was ineligible. The SSA eventually discovered the error and demanded repayment of eight years’ benefits. Costello seeks to offset this amount by the benefits she would have received had she applied under the other ex-husband’s account. An administrative law judge concluded that such an offset is unavailable because the situation does not fall within 42 U.S.C. §402’s “misinformation” provision, which allows applications to be granted retroactively in some circumstances. After the Appeals Council declined Costello’s request for review, she brought this suit, in which the district court granted summary judgment for the agency.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision by Judge Easterbrook reversed and allowed Ms. Costello the offset she requested.

I have a hard time understanding how the Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Council and District Court all ruled against Mrs. Costello. As described, her case is extremely sympathetic.

In addition to the theory Mrs. Costello used, there is at least one other theory that could have been used (and maybe it was used, but was not an issue presented to the Court of Appeals), a theory which I find more compelling than the one used. When Mrs. Costello filed that claim for survivor's benefits, the claim form said that she was applying for all benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act to which she might be eligible. That is what all Title II claim forms say and that language is there for a reason -- to take care of cases in which, by mistake, the wrong claim is taken, which happens to be exactly Mrs Costello's situation. There is nothing in this language that limits the claim to the Social Security number listed on the claim form. Therefore, Mrs. Costello did file a claim for benefits on the account under which she was eligible and has no need to establish the claim filing date based upon misinformation.

Also, Mrs. Costello should have been granted waiver of the overpayment if she had asked. Obviously, she was without fault and probably has nowhere near enough money to repay. In any case, it would be against equity and good conscience to ask her to repay under these circumstances, which would make her financial status irrelevant.