A woman is blaming her former lawyer for the dismissal of her social security disability claim.
Marylynn Dixon filed a complaint Aug. 3 in Madison County Circuit Court against Evan J. Beatty.
Dixon claims she hired Beatty on July 28, 2003, to represent her in a social security disability claim.
But the claim was dismissed for want of prosecution, and now Dixon says she has lost her opportunity to redeem any social security disability benefits.
She blames Beatty for failing to take any action after the claim was filed, for failing to take action after the claim was dismissed and for failing to inform her of the claim's dismissal.
Dixon is seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just.
Lance R. Mallon of Mallon Law Firm in Wood River will be representing her.
Aug 12, 2009
Attorney Malpractice Alleged In Social Security Case
From the Madison-St. Clair Record:
Summers On Social Security "Reform"
From Edmund Andrews' The Caucus blog at the New York Times:
Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, told a conference of economists in Washington on Tuesday that President Obama would probably start addressing the needs of Social Security before the end of his term. ...
Mr. Summers seemed intent on signaling that Mr. Obama’s idea of “reform” would be to strengthen the program rather rather than to partly privatize it.
I have this feeling that before it is over the Obama health care plan will come to include some "fix" for Social Security. President Obama keeps promising that his health care plan will not cost the Treasury any money yet so far his administration has not offered a plan for offsetting the costs of the health care plan. Social Security "reform" offers a means of offsetting these costs. Administration officials keep talking Social Security "reform." I am probably adding 2 + 2 and getting not 4 or even 5, but 13. We shall see.
Settlement In Fugitive Felon Class Action
From the Washington Post:
The Social Security Administration has agreed to pay more than $500 million in back benefits to more than 80,000 recipients whose benefits were unfairly denied after they were flagged by a federal computer program designed to catch serious criminals, officials said Tuesday.
According to a preliminary agreement, approved Tuesday by U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, Calif., the Social Security Administration will pay recipients who have been denied benefits since Jan. 1, 2007. In addition, more than 120,000 recipients who were denied benefits before 2007 are eligible to apply for reinstatement....
"It's changing a policy which was really devastating for some of the most vulnerable people in the country," said Gerald McIntyre, an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs.
The searches captured dozens of criminals, including some wanted for homicide. But they also ensnared countless elderly and disabled people accused of relatively minor offenses such as shoplifting or writing bad checks. In some cases, the victims simply shared a name and a birth date with an offender. Often it was difficult for these citizens to appeal their cases....
In the last few years, at least eight district court judges across the country have ruled in favor of victims in individual cases, saying that cutting off benefits based solely on the database search was illegal.
Aug 11, 2009
AALJ Loses Case Against OPM
The Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), which represents most of Social Security's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and several attorneys in private practice filed suit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) over the announcement of a new register for ALJs. The lawsuit raised a number of issues, mostly having to do with allegations that attorneys already working for Social Security were given an advantage by the way in which OPM created the new register and the way in which OPM announced the new register.
The AALJ and the attorneys have lost on all counts. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to OPM yesterday.
Update: As a commenter correctly points out, summary judgment was granted against AALJ on only one of four causes of action. The rest of the case goes forward.
The AALJ and the attorneys have lost on all counts. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to OPM yesterday.
Update: As a commenter correctly points out, summary judgment was granted against AALJ on only one of four causes of action. The rest of the case goes forward.
Some Numbers For The Appeals Council
The Social Security Forum, a publication of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) contains the report reproduced below that NOSSCR obtained from Social Security on Appeals Council operations. Click on it to see it full size.
Aug 10, 2009
NADE Newsletter
The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization that represents the people who make initial and reconsideration determinations upon Social Security disability claims at state Disability Determination Services (DDS), has issued its Summer 2009 newsletter.
The newsletter contains a good deal of information about NADE's interaction with the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP). I noticed the NADE seems interested in eliminating the concept of transferable skills in determining disability.
The newsletter contains a list showing the problems caused for DDS's around the country by state budget problems. The list shows seven states with DDS hiring freezes and five states with furloughs of DDS personnel. The list is more than three months old so things may be worse in many states by now. I know that things are worse in North Carolina, where we now have a partial furlough of all state employees, including DDS employees.
The newsletter contains a good deal of information about NADE's interaction with the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP). I noticed the NADE seems interested in eliminating the concept of transferable skills in determining disability.
The newsletter contains a list showing the problems caused for DDS's around the country by state budget problems. The list shows seven states with DDS hiring freezes and five states with furloughs of DDS personnel. The list is more than three months old so things may be worse in many states by now. I know that things are worse in North Carolina, where we now have a partial furlough of all state employees, including DDS employees.
Many Criminal Charges In Michigan
From WILX:
More than 200 Muskegon-area residents are accused of cashing duplicated SocialSecurity disability checks and defrauding the federal government of more than $400,000.
The Muskegon Chronicle and WOOD-TV report state charges were announced Monday against 209 individuals.
The suspects were identified during a 10-month investigation code-named "Operation Rain Check." Investigators say many cashed duplicate Social Security checks after claiming the originals were stolen or lost. Some were collecting checks for other people as "representative payees."
Fifty-six suspects are charged with felonies and 153 with misdemeanors. Arrest warrants have been issued and the suspects will be arraigned in 60th [?] District Court in batches over the next several weeks.
Why Put Retarded People On The Hit List?
A document issued by the staff of the Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP) seems to me to display a fixed intention to make it harder for persons with low cognitive abilities to qualify for Social Security disability benefits.
First, let us define a term. "Cognitive" refers to intellectual qualities -- the ability to think, reason and remember. Someone with low cognitive abilities has a low IQ. Those who have cognitive difficulties range from merely having low average intelligence to being profoundly retarded. Some disability claims are filed based solely upon very low cognitive abilities, but many more are filed by those who have a combination of somewhat low cognitive abilities with other physical or mental impairments.
There is extensive and persuasive evidence that the cognitive demands of employment have increased in recent decades. I was under the impression that this was a well-established fact that no one disputes. As one who has been around for a few decades, I though it was self-evident.
And yet, we have a statement by the staff of ODIP that they know that if they collect data about the cognitive demands of employment that there is no question about it, that it will become harder for Social Security disability claimants with low cognitive abilities to qualify for benefits. The only issue they perceive is how to defend this. I think they correctly perceive that defending this will be difficult.
How does OIDAP staff know that if they devise a system that generates data about the cognitive demands of employment that this data will make it harder for retarded people to get disability benefits? They have not finished devising a data collection system, much less collected any data. Such information as we have already tells us to expect the exact opposite, that updated data will show fewer employment opportunities for people who have low cognitive abilities. It sounds like OIDAP staff has prejudged what an updated occupational information system will show and that they intend for it to hurt retarded people. Why? How did retarded people get on the hit list? How can one interpret this as anything other than prejudice against people with low cognitive abilities? How do we trust OIDAP to devise a fair system when their staff has a preconceived intention to use the new system to hurt a class of disability claimants?
First, let us define a term. "Cognitive" refers to intellectual qualities -- the ability to think, reason and remember. Someone with low cognitive abilities has a low IQ. Those who have cognitive difficulties range from merely having low average intelligence to being profoundly retarded. Some disability claims are filed based solely upon very low cognitive abilities, but many more are filed by those who have a combination of somewhat low cognitive abilities with other physical or mental impairments.
There is extensive and persuasive evidence that the cognitive demands of employment have increased in recent decades. I was under the impression that this was a well-established fact that no one disputes. As one who has been around for a few decades, I though it was self-evident.
And yet, we have a statement by the staff of ODIP that they know that if they collect data about the cognitive demands of employment that there is no question about it, that it will become harder for Social Security disability claimants with low cognitive abilities to qualify for benefits. The only issue they perceive is how to defend this. I think they correctly perceive that defending this will be difficult.
How does OIDAP staff know that if they devise a system that generates data about the cognitive demands of employment that this data will make it harder for retarded people to get disability benefits? They have not finished devising a data collection system, much less collected any data. Such information as we have already tells us to expect the exact opposite, that updated data will show fewer employment opportunities for people who have low cognitive abilities. It sounds like OIDAP staff has prejudged what an updated occupational information system will show and that they intend for it to hurt retarded people. Why? How did retarded people get on the hit list? How can one interpret this as anything other than prejudice against people with low cognitive abilities? How do we trust OIDAP to devise a fair system when their staff has a preconceived intention to use the new system to hurt a class of disability claimants?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)