AARP Makes A Mistake

Social Security has released an emergency message to its staff because of an error made by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) in its Bulletin. In its "Ask the Experts" column, AARP stated that a 62 year old person who lacked sufficient work credits could obtain Social Security benefits on the account of their 64 year old spouse, even though that spouse was still working and had not applied for Social Security retirement benefits. Serious mistake. AARP needs better experts.

Draft Of Frequently Asked Questions

On the separate Social Security Perspectives blog I have posted a draft of an update to my Frequently Asked Questions. I am posting them to ask for comments. Do you think any of the answers are wrong or misleading or outdated? Are there other questions that I ought to include?

These FAQs have been used with my consent by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and a few others and illegally by many more. You may freely link to this draft of the FAQs, but you ought to wait until I finalize them. You may not simply steal them however. Copying them, with or without attribution, and using them elsewhere, whether online or offline, without my permission is a copyright violation or to be more blunt, theft. That is illegal and can get you in trouble.

Waiting In Minnesota

The Minneapolis Star Tribune ran an article Sunday on the terrible backlog of Social Security disability claims awaiting adjudication.

The article appears to have been generated by Allsup's public relations efforts. At least, the article reads almost like an infomercial for Allsup.

Results Of Last Week's Unscientific Poll

What effect will the Presidential election results have on Michael Astrue's future as Commissioner of Social Security?

McCain will be elected and Astrue will continue as Commissioner (1)	1%
McCain will be elected, but Astrue will decide to resign (1)	1%
Obama will be elected and Astrue will continue as Commissioner (18)	24%
Obama will be elected and Astrue will decide to resign (21)	28%
Obama will be elected, Astrue will try to stay as Commissioner, but Obama and other Democrats will force Astrue to leave (33)	45%

Total Votes: 74

Investigations Of Management Personnel

The National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, puts out a newsletter. I think they aim to publish it four times a year, but do not always succeed. They have just put out a special issue of their newsletter devoted to one topic, non-criminal investigations of Social Security management personnel. They are concerned that their members are not receiving fair and equitable treatment. This is not the first time that this matter has been covered in the NCSSMA newsletter, but they really seem upset now.

It is interesting that NCSSMA emphasizes in the newsletter that they are not a union. Since NCSSMA members are supervisory personnel, I suppose that it would be impossible for NCSSMA to become a union. However, NCSSMA wants its members treated as well as union members when they are investigated.

This is reminiscent of the way that the Administrative Law Judge Association (AALJ) became a union. The AALJ members were concerned that Social Security management was not treating ALJs as well as it treated union members. Now, Social Security management personnel are concerned that they are not being treated as well as union members. NCSSMA's concerns cannot be a good thing for the Social Security Administration.

Social Security Websites Down

I thought that Social Security was only going to do some database work this weekend. However, just try accessing anything that Social Security normally has on the web. Virtually everything other than Social Security's home page is down. I doubt that many will be inconvenienced, but this does seem extreme.

AFGE Criticizes iClaims And Ready Retirement -- And Social Security's Involvement With Voter Registration

From a press release issued by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a union, which represents much of Social Security's workforce:

The Social Security Administration recently has tried several new directives for dealing with benefit applicants, including a new system for filing Social Security benefits via the Internet. Some of the new directives already are causing problems for the SSA and applicants alike.

The new iClaims and Ready Retirement initiatives were designed to streamline the Social Security Administration by moving the public to Internet services, but according the American Federation of Government Employees, it is doing the opposite. “Without an SSA employee adjudicating the claims, we run the risk of fraud and incorrect claims being filed,” said AFGE Council 220 President Witold Skwierczynski.

“It’s not only people who are filling out fraudulent applications, but applicants who just don’t understand the confusing iClaims process and are unknowingly cheating themselves out of their deserved benefits,” said Skwierczynski. “Moving the public over to Internet services short-changes anyone who attempts to use these services and creates a situation where fraud easily can occur. Filing for Social Security benefits is not something easily handled over the Internet, particularly if the applicant is not computer savvy.”

The press release ends with this swipe at Social Security's involvement with voter registration:

AFGE also is concerned about how the SSA is dealing with the Help America Vote Act. States are required to authenticate new registration applicants using the last four digits of their Social Security number or driver’s license, and match that number to the Social Security database. However, databases are prone to errors such as data entry mistakes which result in spelling mistakes, and switched numbers. Because of this there is now a 28.5 percent error rate with the matches between voter registration records and the SSA database.

NPRM On Representation Of Claimants -- Part VII -- Entities As Representatives

I think this will be the last installment of my comments on Social Security's Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) on representation of claimants.

My comments today have to do with the concept of an entity as a representative of claimants. The NPRM defines an entity as "any business, firm, or other association, including but not limited to partnerships, corporations, for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit organizations." An entity may be a principal representative and a professional representative. Direct payment of fees may be made to an entity that meets these conditions:

(1) The entity must attest that it is in possession of a signed statement from each attorney or non-attorney who has performed any representational services for the claim in question that includes the following:
(i) The attorney or non-attorney has performed all representational services on behalf of the entity, (ii) Any fees paid pursuant to the services the attorney or non-attorney have provided should be paid directly to the entity, and
(iii) The attorney or non-attorney representative receives compensation for the services provided directly from the entity.
(2) The entity must attest that all individuals who have provided representational services on the claim in question are individuals who qualify for direct payment under the Act or the direct payment demonstration project, as defined in § 404.1717.

Beyond this, the NPRM provides almost no guidance on how entities are to be treated.

I have already posted about the omission of a definition for the term, "representational services," and the contradiction between the apparent requirement that one attorney or non-attorney representative perform all "representational services" for an entity and the basic concept of allowing entities to represent claimants.

Let me list other questions about how entities are to be treated that occur to me after reading this NPRM:

1. What happens when we make the transition to allowing entities to represent claimants and firms begin changing the name of the representative on pending cases from an individual to an entity? Does this mean that the fee agreement process no longer applies, that the case is automatically a fee agreement case?
   
2. What happens when an entity breaks up? Does the claimant no longer have any kind of representative? Does this mean that the fee agreement process can no longer apply, that the fee petition process automatically applies?
   
3. How will Social Security deal with a situation in which an entity, which we will call Smith & Smith, breaks in half and each of the newly separated halves of Smith & Smith claims to be the true successor to Smith & Smith?
4. What if the entity we are calling Smith & Smith is a partnership, but decides to become a professional corporation. Does the change in the formal nature of the business mean that it becomes a different entity, so that the fee agreement process no longer applies?
5. What happens if an attorney practicing as a solo decides to join an established firm that already has multiple attorneys representing Social Security claimants? If the attorney substitutes the entity he or she has just joined as the representative of his or her clients, do these claimants now have a new representative, so that the fee agreement process no longer applies?
6. What happens if two entities merge?
   
7. To what extent can an entity allow employees who are not attorneys or otherwise eligible for withholding of fees to work on a case? Can the entity have someone not eligible for withholding of fees appear at the hearing? (I know this is another way of asking what is meant by "representational services", but this is a crucial issue.)
8. What happens to an entity which breaks the rules? We know what happens to individuals who break the rules -- they can lose their right to practice before the Social Security Administration. Does an entire entity lose the right to practice before Social Security if one person acting on behalf of the entity breaks the rules? If not, how do we know whom to punish? Should the entity be able to walk away from breaking the rules merely by firing one person? What if an entity has a pattern of breaking the rules? At what point can the entire entity lose the right to represent claimants?
   

You may comment on this proposal online and I encourage you to do so. This proposal has many implications. It appears to me that Social Security had difficulty drafting it and the end result is unsatisfactory. There should be many comments.