New Kid On The Block

The Cochran Firm -- the one that is supposed to be related to the late Johnnie Cochran of the O.J. Simpson trial fame -- is now advertising, at least on the internet, for Social Security disability clients.

You have to wonder just how much they know about the subject since they seem to be seeking clients with Down Syndrome. Of course, Down Syndrome is disabling, but folks with Down Syndrome are almost always approved quickly and do not need an attorney. There would not be enough of a fee in the average Down Syndrome case to make it worth an attorney's time anyway.

There is also the issue that affects any outfit which tries to represent Social Security claimants nationwide -- how do you represent people who will be having hearings all across the United States? It would take hundreds of offices and thousands of employees all across the country to do this properly. No entity representing Social Security disability claimants has that kind of network. So what does the Cochran Firm do, work through local attorneys and non-attorneys, which means that the Cochran Firm exists for little more than advertising purposes, or try to deal with the claimant only over the telephone until the day of the hearing and then parachute in someone to represent the claimant at the hearing, which is expensive for the firm and not too satisfactory for the claimant? Either way, a "national" firm representing Social Security disability claimants has a lot of problems.

VOIP Problems

From a letter sent by the National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, to Donnell Adams, Social Security's Associate Commissioner for the Office of Telephone Services about the agency's transition to a new telephone system based upon Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) technology (emphasis added):

Without question we need to replace our old telephone systems. ... This letter provides both a summary of our [recent conference] call and additional information and recommendations. ...

One office has been waiting 5 weeks to get names changed on two instruments. Two new employees have replaced two employees who left the office -- same position -- no change to the telephone system is needed except the name. A third employee who was promoted in January has been waiting to have his instrument properly updated since that time. These are easy actions....

We are concerned about the reported poor quality of VOIP calls, especially a call that is made to a non-VOIP phone. There are many echoes on the call, excess static, and low voice quality....

We are quite concerned about the extent of the problems with VOIP and the ability to support it as it expands. With only about a sixth of the Field Offices in the country installed, we are concerned that Headquarters and Nortel may not have the capacity to handle such an expansion. This is why we have suggested a moratorium on expansion until the necessary organization and contract issues are fully addressed.

Nortel is not big enough to handle this contract? That is a bit scary. Nortel is a big company.

Social Security Bulletin Released

The May edition of the Social Security Bulletin, a publication of the Office of Research, Statistics & Policy Analysis at Social Security, has been released. As usual, it includes basic statistical information about Social Security as well as statistically oriented scholarly articles.

The Greening Of Social Security

From the Social Security Update, a newsletter put out by the Social Security Administration:

...[Social Security's] eight-story Southeastern Program Service Center in Birmingham, Ala., boasts the largest green roof on any General Services Administration-leased building. The roof reduces the building's carbon footprint with oxygen-producing plants and vegetables. The building also features a raised floor system that provides better ventilation for improved air quality; a "natural light harvesting" system is designed to capture as much natural sunlight as possible; and accessible public transit allows more employees to use public transportation.

Most Popular Baby Names

Social Security has released its list of most popular names for babies over the last year:

Boys:	1) Jacob	Girls:	1) Emma
	2) Michael		2) Isabella
	3) Ethan		3) Emily
	4) Joshua		4) Madison
	5) Daniel		5) Ava
	6) Alexander		6) Olivia
	7) Anthony		7) Sophia
	8) William		8) Abigail
	9) Christopher		9) Elizabeth
	10) Matthew		10) Chloe

Chloe? And the press release says that Khloe is rising fast! I am feeling old and out of the loop.

Room For Debate?

Some excerpts from the Room for Debate blog at the New York Times:

From "The Editors":
The 2010 budget unveiled on Thursday by the Obama administration estimates that the government can generate huge savings if it devotes more resources to eliminating fraud, abuse and waste in Medicare, Medicaid and the Social Security disability insurance program. ...

In the Social Security program alone, the White House proposes to spend $4.3 billion over five years to fight fraud associated with disability claims — a problem, officials say, that stems from lack of oversight. Federal spending on disability insurance leaped 65 percent from 2001 to 2007, “yet the number of full medical reviews, one type of review for evaluating claims for eligibility for continuing disability payments, fell from 840,000 in 2001 to 190,000 in 2007, according to the Social Security Administration,” as The Wall Street Journal reported this week.

From Jennifer L. Erkulwater, an associate professor of political science at the University of Richmond, and the author of “Disability Rights and the American Social Safety Net”:

Before we go looking for miscreants cheating the disability programs, it is important to realize that the growth in the Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance programs is perfectly understandable given bipartisan policy changes made two decades ago and current limits on what the Social Security Administration can do to ferret out fraud.

Between 1984 and 1990, Congress and the S.S.A. loosened the disability requirements, especially for children and people suffering from mental disorders. The agency also agreed that it would no longer cut off recipients it thought were “no longer disabled” unless it could show that their medical condition had improved, something that is exceedingly difficult to do. As part of welfare reform in 1996, Republicans in Congress did manage to tighten disability standards somewhat.

From Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist who now works at the Brookings Institution:

The federal government can certainly reduce the disability rolls and the cost of the disability program by conducting more frequent and tough-minded reviews of recipients’ disability status. There will be collateral damage, however. The reviews will impose real hardship on some disabled workers whose cases are reviewed.

It makes sense to conduct the reviews, but it would be sensible to focus reviews on workers with medical conditions that are most likely to improve. Resources should also be concentrated in parts of the country where statistics suggest that error rates are highest.

From Morley White, an Administrative Law Judge in Cleveland:
... I do not believe that there is as much fraud as the press and the public believe ...

I have advocated for a long time that the government needs to have its own representative in these hearings. I do not advocate making the hearings adversarial, but that government attorneys act as an ombudsman, charged with the duty of getting the pertinent facts.

Nice debate. "The Editors" know little, Gary Burtless knows nothing, Professor Erkulwater presents an argument that ignores the clear evidence that disability policy during the Reagan years was an aberrational nightmare rather than a Golden Age and Judge White, who actually has good knowledge about Social Security disability, decides to use his space to promote a hopeless cause that has little to do with the subject at hand.

Update: The Times has added two additional pieces to this "debate." One is from a disability examiner in North Carolina. His piece seems to have been edited into near complete incoherence. I am sorry for the author, because he might have had something useful to contribute. The other piece is from what I will refer to as a "disability denier," that is someone who feels that everyone can work. "Disability deniers" believe that the only reason that people are "disabled" is because of societal discrimination. With enough government funds, especially funds given to people like the "disability deniers", almost everyone on Social Security could be returned to productive employment. "Disability deniers" seem to believe that almost everyone who is disabled is in a wheelchair. Hey, a wheelchair is used as a symbol for disability, isn't it? Yes, I exaggerate the man's position, but not by much. The "disability deniers" are responsible for the Ticket to Work fiasco. Of course, their position would be that Ticket to Work failed because it was not given an adequate test, that more money for research is desperately needed. Baloney. The credulous usually believe that the "disability deniers" are important experts. I would really like to sit some of these "disability deniers" down with a roomful of Social Security disability recipients so that they could hear about the effects of chronic pain, chronic fatigue and chronic mental instability on ability to work. They might learn that people in wheelchairs are only a small fraction of the disabled population and that issues affecting them have little to do with the lives of most disabled people.

Results Of Last Week's Unscientific Poll

What percentage increase in personnel is needed in order to give good public service at those parts of Social Security with which you have personal experience?

No increase needed (5)	4%
1-5% (4)	4%
6-10% (16)	14%
11-15% (14)	12%
16-20% (19)	17%
21-25% (15)	13%
26-30% (2)	2%
More than 30% (39)	34%

Total Votes: 114

The comments that people made on the poll are also worth a look.

4th Circuit Rules That EAJA Fee Belongs To Client

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has issued an opinion in Stephens v. Astrue that an attorney fee under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) belongs to the claimant and is subject to attachment for debts owed the federal government. This was fairly predictable since the 4th Circuit is, by far, the most conservative of the federal Courts of Appeal. Many, perhaps most, Social Security cases that go to the federal courts end with the government having to pay an EAJA fee. This issue is likely headed to the Supreme Court, probably in the next term. Legislative action on the issue is also possible.