I Had Wondered About This

You knew about disability claims for children under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, but did you realize there can be disability claims for children under Title II of the Social Security Act? They do and curiously enough, Social Security applies adult standards to these child disability claims. Seems odd to me. Here is some information from a recent addition to Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS):

Effective 9/1/81, P.L. 97-35 discontinued spouse's, mother's, and father's benefits when the youngest child-in-care attains age 16, unless the child is disabled. Although the spouse’s, mother’s, or father’s benefits may cease, the child's benefits continue to age 18 regardless of whether he or she is disabled. A disability determination for the alleged DMC [DisabledMinor Child] is needed only to entitle the mother or father to continue to receive benefits. ...

To determine if a child is disabled for the child-in-care provisions use the sequential evaluation process applicable to Title II Adult and CDB claims. See “Sequential Evaluation” (DI 22001.000).

At step 3 of the disability evaluation process (Does impairment(s) meet or equal a listing?), consider Part “B” of the listings first. If the child’s alleged impairment(s) does not meet or equal a Part “B” listing, consider the Part “A” listings.

NOTE: The “functional equivalence” policy applicable to Title XVI child cases (see DI 25225.001) does not apply to DMC, or any other Title II cases.

It is not clear to me from this whether the adult listings apply or the child listings. It would be weird to refuse to apply the child listings, but everything else about this policy is weird.

Waiting In Indiana

From the Indianapolis Star:

Dana Smith waited three years for a judge to agree she qualifies for Social Security disability payments.

Had she lived in a state other than Indiana, the wait could have been much shorter.

That's because Indiana has one of the worst records in the country for processing the disability claims of people unable to work because of medical or psychiatric reasons. ...

For a determination at the Indianapolis offices for Social Security disability or Supplemental Security Income, the average applicant waits 749 days from the time of filing until a hearing before an administrative judge, the step necessary if claims are denied -- and most are.

Most Americans wait 505 days, the Social Security Administration estimates. ...

Nationwide, the Social Security Administration has 10 percent fewer judges to hear case appeals than it did a decade ago, while the number of cases has increased by more than 176 percent, said Carmen Moreno, regional communications director for the Social Security Administration's Chicago region, which includes Indiana.

By the way, this appears to be another story generated by Allsup.

Poll

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Happy Independence Day!

Binder And Binder Lawsuit

On the separate Social Security Perspectives Blog I have posted copies of a trademark infringement complaint filed by Binder and Binder against a competing entity and the answer filed by that defendant. The materials are interesting for the insight they provide into the methods of operation of Binder and Binder, one of the largest entities representing Social Security claimants, and the importance of internet advertising to its operations. Binder and Binder appears to combine a law firm with a number of non-attorney corporations in a unique corporate structure. Binder and Binder appears to make extensive use of internet advertising.

Because of technical limitations in Blogger, these federal court filings are spread over several posts and you must click on each page separately to view it full size. There is no simple way for a reader to download the whole thing, unless you have a Pacer account, in which case you can download all the papers filed with the Court.

ALJ Register To Reopen

A press release from the Office of Personnel Management:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management today [July 2] announced it will re-open the Administrative Law Judge examination to refresh the list of eligible candidates who serve as impartial arbiters at regulatory and benefits-granting federal agencies.

OPM will officially announce the 2008 ALJ examination on its USAJOBS website (www.usajobs.gov) in the near future. The application filing period will be made public at that time; the application limit will factor-in future agency hiring needs.

OPM Director Linda M. Springer said the new examination advances the agency's strategy of maintaining a sufficient number of qualified ALJ candidates to serve as arbiters of fact in formal proceedings requiring a decision on the record.

"From time to time, we must re-open the exam to ensure federal agencies have access to ALJ candidates who will serve the interests of America's citizens expeditiously and in accordance with law," said Springer. "Additionally, we are giving professional men and women the opportunity to serve their country in an important capacity."

New Entitlements Commission Proposed

From the Capitol Insider put out by the Disability Policy Collaboration (no link available this time but you can sign up to receive this newsletter):

During consideration [of] the FY 2009 appropriations for the Financial Services bill, an amendment to create a commission to examine the cost of entitlement programs (such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare) and limiting their growth failed by a vote of 31-32. House Majority leaders are concerned that this approach would limit Congressional responsibility and give too much power to the Executive Branch.

A Suggestion For Video Hearings

The Social Security Administration is making extensive use of video technology to allow Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to hold hearings for claimants located in other towns. I represented a claimant at such a hearing yesterday. On the video screen I could barely distinguish the ALJ from the high backed chair in which she was sitting. It was hard to tell the source of the voice we heard, since the ALJ was almost invisible. This had nothing to do with the way the equipment was being operated. Zooming in helped little. This is a problem I have been seeing ever since video hearings started. I do not think the problem lays with the equipment. I think the problem is simple. Video cameras work poorly when used with ordinary office florescent lighting. If Social Security is going to spend so much money on cameras, televisions and bandwidth, I think it would be a good idea to spend a little money on adequately lighting hearing rooms for television. It will not cost much but I expect it will make a big difference in video quality. I might even be able to see the ALJs and they might be better able to see me and my clients.