From The NOSSCR Conference -- III

Nancy Shor, the long time executive director of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) spoke at the organization's conference in Chicago yesterday. Here are a few points from what she had to say:

• She understands that the proposed regulations that would recognize law firms and other entities as representing Social Security claimants are now dead. She does not understand why.
• Ms. Shor has resigned from the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panels (OIDAP). She felt that she had to after NOSSCR adopted a position statement opposing Social Security going ahead with its own occupational information system, something that OIDAP wants to do.
• She expects a new report from OIDAP by the end of the year.
  

From The NOSSCR Conference -- II

It would be impractical for me to summarize everything said at the Wednesday general session of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives conference in Chicago. I will stick to that which regular readers of this blog might find newsworthy.

Catherine Olson, the staff director of the House Social Security Subcommittee spoke. Congressional staffers are not supposed to make news and Ms. Olson did as she was supposed to do in giving those present an update on Social Security and Congress. She expressed concern about Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP). She thought, or perhaps hoped, that Social Security was reaching out to the Department of Labor (DOL). I hope she is correct. My guess is that any outreach to DOL will disappear if Republicans take control of the House of Representatives. As I have stated before, OIDAP's work is, by far, the most important policy issue that the Social Security Administration has dealt with in more than 30 years.

Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit also spoke. Federal judges are also supposed to avoid making newsworthy speeches. Judge Hamilton managed to give an interesting, engaging speech without making news. He did give an answer to a question that lawyers who do Social Security work in the federal courts -- but no one else -- will find interesting. He was asked whether it is a good idea in drafting a brief to keep the statement of the facts and the legal arguments completely separate or whether an attorney should have a somewhat brief statement of the facts and then supplement those facts in the argument section of the brief. Judge Hamilton prefers the latter course, of mixing in detailed facts with the legal argument. This must sound extremely unimportant to most people reading this blog but I assure readers that it is a crucial question for anyone drafting a Social Security appellate brief. It is an excellent example of the sort of decisions that attorneys have to make every day. This one is a particularly tough call for an attorney. As boring as it sounds, it can be the difference between winning and losing a client's case. One problem with what Judge Hamilton rlecommended is that he expressed his preference but that is not necessarily the preference of every other appellate judge. Another problem, as Judge Hamilton mentioned, is that what he suggests does not precisely comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Attorneys have to worry how far they can bend these rules before they offend an appellate judge. Aren't you glad that you're not a practicing attorney?

From The NOSSCR Conference -- I

Today was the first full day of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representative' (NOSSCR) semi-annual conference. More than 1,200 people were present at the Marriott Magic Mile in Chicago.

The day started with the annual Eileen Sweeney Public Service award, which this year went to David Traver and to me. David is well deserving of his award. He has maintained the SSAS Connect Board for many, many years. It is a vital resource in the Social Security world.

I am deeply grateful for my award. I have been involved with NOSSCR since 1979, the year it began and the year that I entered private law practice. I have gotten far more out of my involvement in NOSSCR than I ever put in. It is especially satisfying to receive an award named after Eileen Sweeney. She was a great woman who had an incredible impact on the world. I wish she could have lived longer.

Why?

Social Security has just withdrawn a proposed amendment to its regulations that would have made permanent the authority of some of its senior attorneys to issue fully favorable decisions on appeals of disability claims.

Problems At The Appeals Council

An e-mail I received from a legal assistant at my firm:

No surprise, but just received this from Barbara Hunt, Chief, Congressional and Public Affairs Branch [at the Appeals Council]:

“The Council has received an unprecedented number of requests for review and as a result, is experiencing lengthy delays in the processing of its cases. Although the average processing time for the Council is about 13 months, it is not unusual to find delays of about 30 months”

I have found that they are only answering the phones in the morning. The afternoon calls go to a “general mailbox” which, from my experience, is equivalent to a black hole. I have yet to get a call back from messages left there.

Senate Hearing On LTD

The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing for September 28 to investigate the question Do Private Long-Term Disability Policies Provide the Protection They Promise? David Rust, Social Security's Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy is scheduled to testify. Mary DeBofsky, a Chicago attorney who represents long term disability claimants will also testify.

Lots Of Pain For No Gain

An Op Ed piece appearing in the Los Angeles Times, written by Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Yvonne Walker, president of The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents employees of the California Disability Determination Services Department:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may have a cameo role in a current film, but the real "Expendables" appear to be disabled Californians, the state employees who make disability decisions for the Social Security Administration and the federal dollars he is throwing away. Long before he was governor, bodybuilder Schwarzenegger lived by the motto "No pain, no gain." However, as California's chief executive, his policy of furloughing even those state employees whose salaries are federally funded has given rise to a new axiom: "Lots of pain for no gain."

Social Security pays 100% of the salaries and overhead for workers in California's Disability Determination Services Division (DDSD) — bringing in more than $211 million a year to the state. These employees make medical determinations for Social Security payments. As a direct result of their work, each month Social Security pays $1.3 billion in disability benefits to more than 1.3 million California residents.

Furloughing DDSD employees does not save California a single penny. It has done nothing to reduce the $19-billion general fund deficit. Instead, the state loses the federal funds allocated for the DDSD. Most tragically, it imposes a financial burden on California's disabled citizens by delaying millions of dollars in federal disability benefits and medical coverage to those in need.

To meet the needs of California residents, the Social Security Administration is redirecting thousands of backlogged California cases to Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The cost of processing such cases will total millions of dollars — federal dollars that would have gone to California, had the governor chosen to exempt the DDSD workers from furloughs.

"Not Something The State Foresaw"

From the Charleston, WV Daily Mail:

Several thousand low-income West Virginia children who are also blind or disabled could see a one-month reduction in their federal disability benefits, the result of a decision by the state Department of Health and Human Resources.

Faced with a deadline for using millions of dollars in one-time federal stimulus funds, the department decided to send tens of thousands of children $250 extra for school clothes and supplies.

The Social Security Administration at this point views those checks as income.

In West Virginia, about 9,300 low-income blind or disabled children received Social Security Income benefits.

Because the receipt of those benefits is based on income level, any extra money the children receive - including the money from the state for school clothes - causes a reduction in the amount the children receive from the federal Supplemental Security Insurance program.

"It's reducing (SSI) dollar-for-dollar based on the amount of money they get (from the state)," Robert Jeffries, a spokesman for the Charleston field office of the Social Security Administration, said Monday. ...

Doug Robinson, deputy commissioner of the state DHHR's Bureau of Children and Families, said the SSI reduction was not something the state foresaw when it decided to send out the $250 checks. He called the federal standards "unfortunate."