What?

From a recent transmittal of Social Security's HALLEX Manual:

If the representative or claimant does not file a fee agreement before SSA makes a favorable decision on a claim with which the representative is involved, yet files a fee agreement before SSA makes another favorable decision in that claim, the decision maker will disapprove the fee agreement for the following reason:

The Social Security Administration did not receive the written agreement before making the first favorable decision that the representative worked toward achieving in this claim.

And what is the legal basis for this? Maybe there is some explanation that escapes me but this sounds like someone is trying to create a problem where none existed previously.

Union Newsletter

Most Social Security employees are members of Council 220 of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a labor union. Council 220 has released the June 2009 edition of the National Council Digest, one of its two newsletters. I have never been able to figure out why they need two newsletters.

Federal Employee Salaries

You can now search a database to see what any federal employee made in 2008. I am told that this site is getting such heavy use that there may be delays in getting data.

Not Proving What You Think

From a press release issued by Allsup:

The average time to process initial Social Security disability claims is increasing by 20 percent this year ... according to Allsup, which represents tens of thousands of people in the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) application and hearing process each year. ...

"Those who apply for benefits with Allsup's expert assistance may be more likely to bypass the long wait and get their SSDI benefits even earlier," Mr. Stein said. "Typically, 54 percent of those who use Allsup will be approved at the application level, but only 35 percent will be approved if they go it alone." ...

About 70 percent of Allsup customers do not have to attend a hearing because Allsup requests an on-the-record decision and presents the judge with a well-developed claim file prior to a hearing.

Actually, what this shows is that Allsup only takes on what it thinks are gold-plated, cannot lose cases. If you take on only this type of case, it does not matter quite as much that the person representing the claimant meets the claimant for the first time on the day of the hearing.

New Office In Tanner's District

NWTN Today (Northwestern Tennessee?) reports that John Tanner, the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, was on hand Tuesday for the opening of a new Social Security field office in Union City, a town in his district. Social Security's Commissioner Michael Astrue and Regional Commissioner Paul Barnes were also on hand. Here is an interesting excerpt from the Commissioner's remarks:

... “I get dozens of pieces of mail from the public every day thanking me for the work that some particular person has done and helped them through some problem,” Astrue said. “And that compassion that you show on a regular basis is such an important part of our mission.” He added that he sees the “difficult” things, too, such as violence reports each and every day. Three years ago, SSA was receiving three to five threats a day. But with the downturn of the economy, “and as the fabric of the country has been torn,” threats have increased to 10 a day.

I wonder how many field office opening ceremonies the Commissioner attends.

IARP Recommends Updating DOT

The International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) publishes a professional journal called "The Rehabilitation Professional." A recent issue of this journal contains an article written by a committee established by IARP to study replacements for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), a fundamental basis for disability determination at Social Security. The title gives away the findings of the committee: "A Call to Update the DOT: Findings of the IARP Occupational Database Committee."

The study details the unreliability of the DOT at the time it was originally published as well as the far more serious problems with using the terribly outdated DOT today. Products already on the market which purport to be replacements for the DOT are discussed, but in the end the committee recommends updating the DOT.

The idea of updating the DOT gives Social Security a bunch of headaches. Here are some of them:

• The DOT was far from perfect even at the time the last edition was published. It will take quite some time to figure out exactly how to update the DOT so it will be better.
  
• Gathering and compiling the data to update the DOT will take years.
• Gathering and compiling the data to update the DOT will cost a lot of money.
• Social Security does not have the money or expertise needed to update the DOT. It is far from clear that the Department of Labor (DOL), which should update the DOT, has any interest in doing so or that DOL can get the money to do so or will have any urgency about the task if it tries to do so.
  
• No one knows what a new DOT will show. The current grid regulations may have to be scrapped or dramatically changed based upon a new DOT.
  

Social Security really should have started taking this problem seriously a long time ago -- like ten years ago -- but the agency chose to put off difficult decisions. Delaying action for the next decade or so is unrealistic. It is amazing that there has not been litigation on this issue already. I might have litigated it myself if I were not in the 4th Circuit.

Other than staffing shortages, the DOT is, by far, the biggest problem facing the Social Security Administration. The staffing problems affecting Social Security are much simpler to solve, however. All that is required is money and time. Congress and the Office of Management and Budget are already well aware of the staffing problem and trying to help. The DOT problem is far more complex. It is probably already too late for a good solution to the DOT problem.

Labor-Management Partnerships Coming

Alyssa Rosenberg at Fedblog quotes the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as saying that "We're very close" to a Presidential order requiring labor-management partnerships at federal agencies. These had been instituted in the Clinton Administration but disbanded in the Bush Administration. Restarting the partnerships has been a major goal of federal employee unions.

Reginald Wells Receives Award

From Alyssa Rosenberg at Fedblog, writing about the National Capital Area Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration awards dinner last night:

Reginald F. Wells, deputy commissioner for human resources of the Social Security Administration, received the David O. Cooke Award for Leadership in the Public Service. The award, which recognizes career achievement in federal service, was presented by Office of Personnel Management director John Berry and by Myra Howze Shiplett, a recognized leader in human resources management issues, who remarked on Wells' many contributions in the human capital arena.