For Unto Us A Child Is Born

Merry Christmas!

Contract To Lockheed Martin

Social Security has awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin for development of a new Disability Case Processing System (DCPS). The contract is for up to $200 million. It appears that Social Security can get out of this contract at just about any point, however.

Has This Been In Doubt?

From Emergency Message EM-10092:

The purpose of this message is to inform all technicians in the field office (FO) and program service center (PSC) that, without exception, we must make a determination on the reconsideration issue when we receive an SSA-561-U2 (Request for Reconsideration) for a Title II or Title XVI overpayment (OP).

The Christmas Spirit

A Christmas Present For Colvin

After only 14 months, Carolyn Colvin was confirmed by the Senate late today. She is now the Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. This was the last piece of business before the Senate adjourned for this session of Congress.

Update: Social Security issues a press release on the confirmation.

When Will DOMA Be Repealed?

President Obama has told The Advocate that he believes that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be repealed. DOMA keeps Social Security from recognizing same sex marriages. Social Security would be far more affected than any other agency if DOMA is repealed.

Even a year ago I would have thought that repeal of DOMA was out of the question. Now, it seems like it is only a matter of time, even with Republicans in control of one house of Congress. This has to be one of the most amazing changes in public opinion in my lifetime.

EAJA Offset Decision

From Kellems v. Astrue (5th Cir. December 16, 2010):

In this social security case, we are asked to decide whether a federal court may order an attorney to remit to his client an award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (the “EAJA”) as an offset against fees awarded to the attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(a) for work before the Social Security Administration. This appeal was stayed pending our decision in Rice v. Astrue, 609 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2010). There we held that federal courts do not have the discretion to offset an EAJA award of attorney’s fees for work performed before a court with a future award of attorney’s fees by a federal agency pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(a). Id. at 839. We now hold, in accordance with Rice, that a federal court may not order an award of attorney’s fees for work performed before a federal agency pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(a) to be offset by an award of attorney’s fees for work performed before a federal court pursuant to the EAJA. We therefore vacate the order of the district court.