New Hearing Office In Massachusetts

From the North Andover, Massachusetts Eagle-Tribune:

LAWRENCE — Michael J. Astrue, commissioner of Social Security, and U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas yesterday announced that the Social Security Administration plans to open a new hearing office ...

Plans call for the Lawrence hearing office to be staffed by seven full-time administrative law judges plus 40 additional support staff.

Would Increasing Full Retirement Age To 69 Be A Tweak?

From The Hill:

President Obama said Social Security is not in crisis and only modest changes are needed to keep it solvent.

The president acknowledged at a small town hall gathering in Columbus, Ohio, Wednesday that the pension fund "has to be tweaked because the population is getting older" but said Republicans' plans to drastically overhaul the program are wrong. ...

"I have been adamant that Social Security should not be privatized, and it will not be privatized as long as I am president," he added.

A Story Behind A Class Action

From the San Mateo Daily Journal:

Jose Alvaro Munevar, 55, was laid up in the hospital recovering from knee surgery when notified that his Supplemental Security Disability Insurance payments were suspended.

His payments were cut off because he bounced a $300 check in Las Vegas back in 2007, a felony in Nevada. ...

Munevar had overdrawn his account by only $15, a mistake that would ultimately cost the man several months of income and a little pride. ...

Munevar tried to clear up the warrant with Clark County, Nev. prosecutors but was unable to do it on his own. ...

[His case along with other cases] quickly turned into a class-action lawsuit as it became clear Social Security was wrongfully withholding payments from more than just a few people.

In fact, it wrongfully withheld payments from more than 200,000 people and owes about $700 million in back payments. ...

[Munevar's attorney] was able to get the Clark County arrest warrant “quashed” and Social Security paid Munevar $14,000 in back payments and restored his benefits.

Alliance For Full Participation

From a notice to "sole source" with Alliance For Full Participation:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) intends to negotiate on a sole source basis with Alliance For Full Participation, 202 Lexington Dr., Silver Spring, MD 20901 ...

Alliance For Full Participation (AFP) is a non-profit organization partnered with 15 non-profit disability organizations. As the umbrella entity for all these non-profits, AFP is uniquely qualified to partner with state level policy makers in all states on policy initiatives affecting transitioning to employment for youth with disabilities. ...

This is the type of outreach needed to provide SSA with reports on:

- State and national level strategic action plans that include stronger accountability by the members of each state team to ensure improved results for youth with disabilities;

-Strategies on more collaborative interagency (Federal/State/local/non-profit or commercial) relationships for improved post-school results;

-Effective evidence-based best practices that lead to successful adult outcomes for youth; and

-Suggested federal and national action for improving secondary education and transition results.

Certainly, more should be done to ease the transition to employment for young people with disabilities. I doubt that Social Security is the best agency to encourage this.

By the way, I can give Social Security advice on what is most needed to encourage these transitions (apart from an improvement in the general economy): more sheltered workshops and job coaches. My advice did not cost a penny and I doubt that anyone familiar with this subject would argue with it.

Some Quotes From The Proposed Mental Impairment Listings

Here are a few quotes from the proposal for new mental impairment listings to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow with some added bolding and with my comments in brackets.

• The proposed paragraph B3 criterion is the same as the current paragraph B3 criterion, “maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace,” except that we propose to change “or” to “and.” This would not be a substantive change in the paragraph B3 criterion, but only a clarification of the overall requirement. [Going from a requirement of meeting one criteria to a requirement of meeting three criteria is not a substantive change?]
  
• One of the provisions from §416.926a(e) that we are including in this definition explains that “marked” is the equivalent of functioning we would expect to find on standardized testing with scores that are at least two, but less than three, standard deviations below the mean. ... A person whose functioning is two standard deviations below the mean is in approximately the second percentile of the population; that is, about 98 percent of the population functions at a higher level. [Social Security is trying to put a 2% cap on the percentage of the population that can be found disabled by mental illness? About 1.1% of the population suffers from schizophrenia. About 1-3% of the population suffers from mental retardation. If we are limiting the listings to the bottom 2% of the population in terms of mental functioning, we are talking about a group that is either in long term care or is not far from needing it.]
  
• Currently, we have an interagency agreement with the Clinical Research Center to explore the possibility of using International Classification of Functioning domains in predicting disability. [Sounds like Social Security is looking for some simple testing instrument to determine disability.]
• ID/MR [Intellectual Disability/Mental Retardation] is often demonstrated by evidence from the period before age 22. However, when we do not have evidence from that period, we will still find that you have ID/MR if we have evidence about your current functioning and the history of your impairment that is consistent with the diagnosis, and there is no evidence to indicate an onset after age 22.
  
• In 12.05C, the term “severe” has the same meaning as in §§404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). Your additional impairment(s) must cause more than a slight or minimal physical or mental functional limitation(s); it must significantly limit your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, as we explain in those sections of our regulations and §§404.1521 and 416.921. The limitation(s) must be separate from the limitations caused by your ID/MR; for example, limitation in your ability to respond appropriately to supervision and coworkers that result from another mental disorder or in your physical ability to walk, stand, or sit. If your additional impairment(s) is not "severe" as defined in our regulations, your ID/MR will not meet 12.05C even if your additional impairment(s) prevents you from doing your past work because of the unique features of that work. [Wait a minute! Are we trying to redefine what is meant by the term "severe impairment" so that something can prevent past work but not be severe -- using the mental impairment listings to redefine an important concept that appears elsewhere in the regulations? Please tell me that Social Security does not really want to reopen the non-severe impairment can of worms.]

New Mental Impairment Listings Available For Review

Social Security has posted new proposed mental impairment listings. These will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow. The public will have an opportunity to comment. It will certainly be at least next year before these become official.

I have not yet had an opportunity to review these.

Update: After only the most superficial review, I would say that the primary changes are to the mental retardation listings, now to be called "Intellectual Disability/Mental Retardation." This was my expectation. The I.Q. testing scores required to meet the listings are unchanged. Multiple new criteria have been added. The appearance is that it would be difficult to find anyone to meet the listing unless they have been quite helpless and dependent their entire life. To my mind, this makes Listing 12.05C meaningless.

Social Security Hearing Office Average Processing Time Report

From the newsletter of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR). Click on each image to view full size.

Compare the average processing time as it has changed over time:

• January 25, 2007 -- 508 days
• May 25, 2007 -- 523 days
• July 28, 2007 -- 528 days
• August 31, 2007 -- 523 days
• November 30, 2007 -- 500 days
• February 29, 2008 -- 511 days
• May 30, 2008 -- 523 days
• June 27, 2008 -- 529 days
• July 31, 2008 -- 530 days
  
• September 3, 2008 -- 532 days
• November 5, 2008 -- 476 days
  
• December 3, 2008 -- 480 days
• March 8, 2009 -- 499 days
• April 24, 2009 -- 505 days
• June 3, 2009 -- 505 days
• September 29, 2009 -- 472 days
• July 5, 2010 -- 415 days
  

Signup For E-File Access

Social Security has posted some limited information about how those who represent Social Security claimants may sign up for internet access to their clients' electronic folders. I hope this process can be speeded up. At the rate things are going, it could take years to get everyone signed up.