About two months ago, the Social Security Administration (SSA) posted a notice of proposed rule-making (NPRM) on changes in its procedural regulations. The deadline for posting comments on this NPRM is December 28. This is a major NPRM. Anyone who works in the Social Security disability field, either for SSA or representing claimants should strongly consider filing comments on the NPRM. If you want to comment, you must do so quickly. Comments can be posted online.
Dec 27, 2007
Bush Signs Appropriations Bill
President Bush has signed the omnibus appropriations bill that will fund Social Security's administrative operations through September 30, 2008. This is is likely to be the rate at which the agency can spend money until early 2009, since there seems little chance of agreement between a lame duck Bush and the Democratic majority in Congress on the fiscal year 2009 budget.
Saving The Juicy Stuff For The Week Of Christmas
From today's Federal Register:
We are issuing these final rules to adopt without change the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on August 16, 2007 at 72 FR 45991. These final rules amend the regulation at 20 CFR 422.527, which requires a person, institution, or organization (person) to obtain the Social Security Administration's (SSA's) approval prior to reproducing, duplicating, or privately printing any SSA prescribed application or other form whether or not the person intended to charge a fee. Section 1140(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) prohibits a person from charging a fee to reproduce, reprint, or distribute any SSA application, form, or publication unless he/she obtains the authorization of the Commissioner of Social Security in accordance with such regulations as he may prescribe.
Dec 26, 2007
Dec 25, 2007
Dec 24, 2007
Nebraska Supreme Court On Effect Of Social Security Child's Benefits On Child Support
The Nebraska Supreme Court has held in Gress v. Gress that a father's child support obligation is not reduced by Social Security children's benefits received by the child. The child involved has Down Syndrome. It is not clear from the decision, but the benefits appear to be Supplemental Security Income disabled child benefits, rather than benefits on the father's account. Previously, the court had held in Ward v. Ward that a father was entitled to an offset for a child's Social Security benefits, even when those benefits were not on the father's account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)