Congressional Hearing On Outlier ALJs

A press release from two Congressional subcommittees (emphasis in original):

U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, and U.S. Congressman Howard Coble (R-NC), Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, announced today that the Subcommittees will hold a joint oversight hearing on the role of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) at the Social Security Administration (SSA).  The hearing will take place on Monday, July 11, 2011 in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 3:30 p.m. ...

ALJ productivity, award and denial rates can vary significantly.  Based on data provided by the SSA, in FY 2010 74 percent of ALJs met the requested threshold of 500 decisions, however 15 ALJs handled more than 1000 cases and 98 ALJs handled fewer than 100 cases.  Also, nationally, ALJs awarded benefits in 61 percent of cases and denied them in 26 percent of cases and dismissed the requests in 14 percent of cases; however, 54 ALJs consistently awarded benefits in 85 percent or more of their cases and 2 ALJs denied them in at least 80 percent of their cases.  The Social Security Subcommittee has requested that the SSA Office of Inspector General evaluate the most significant cases of variance to see what factors may explain it, and whether SSA is effectively using its management authority to ensure adherence to SSA policies and procedures. That review is now underway.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) stated, “No one should have to wait months or even years for their hearing decision because of the office or the ALJ their case is assigned to. That’s just plain wrong.  All of us have a responsibility to make things right for workers who paid for and deserve far better service.  At the same time, Social Security must be able to call bad decision-makers and under-performers to account.  I am committed to exploring measures that can be taken to improve productivity, quality, and agency oversight without compromising the right of claimants to a fair and impartial decision on their case.”

Mandatory Online Appeals Coming?

Social Security requested approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the following item last Friday:

AGENCY: SSA	RIN: 0960-AH31
TITLE: Mandatory Use of Electronic Services (3707F)
STAGE: Final Rule	ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
RECEIVED DATE: 07/01/2011	LEGAL DEADLINE: None

Note that this is a "final rule" rather than a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM). This means that if OMB approves it, there will be no further opportunity to comment before it becomes final. Normally, agencies have to go through the NPRM process to adopt rules. The NPRM process allows comments which the agency must consider. When was there an NPRM on "mandatory use of electronic services"? There wasn't one by that name but there was the "Revisions to Rules on Representation" NPRM in 2008 which would have recognized law firms, corporations and other entities as representing Social Security claimants. That included "mandatory use of electronic process." That NPRM drew many negative comments since the part concerning recognition of entities as representing Social Security claimants was widely considered to be confused and unworkable. That never seemed like a problem that would be impossible to sort out so everyone thought at the time that Social Security would just redo the NPRM to make it workable. However, nothing has happened since. No one at Social Security has given any explanation that I know of. It now appears that Social Security has decided to just go ahead with requiring attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants to file appeals -- and possibly claims -- online.

I wish that Social Security's electronic systems worked better. At the moment, it is not unusual to find it impossible to file an appeal online. The system simply will not allow it. I also have a general feeling of a lack of reciprocity. Social Security wants to solve a problem it has by forcing attorneys and others representing Social Security claimants to file appeals electronically but it walks away after it gets criticized for presenting an unworkable solution to a problem that those representing Social Security claimants have.

Happy Independence Day!

Unrealistic Views About Social Security Contributions

From a press release:

According to a newly released Stony Brook Poll conducted in association with Left Right Research, a Long Island based Marketing Research supplier, more than 81 percent of approximately 7,000 people surveyed believe that they had contributed enough to Social Security to support themselves in retirement, or more than they will receive during their lifetime. ...

When asked about how much they believed they had contributed to ... Social Security during their best paid year, more than 2 in 5 individuals surveyed were wrong by 50 percent or more regarding Social Security contributions ...

One of the reasons that many people believe that Social Security is a bad deal is that they believe that they have paid far more in FICA than they actually have. They think that if they had just invested this money for themselves that they would be wealthy. FICA is not high enough for that to be possibility.

Charlie Binder's Hat

Ever wondered about that cowboy hat that Charlie Binder wears in the TV ads for Binder and Binder? Binder and Binder's blog has an explanation.

McPaper Covers ALJ Disparities

From USA Today:

The growing number of people seeking Social Security disability benefits are finding vast disparities in how their claims are decided.

The gap is most obvious among the Social Security Administration's 1,400 administrative law judges (ALJs), who hear appeals from people who believe their initial application was unfairly denied. Some judges approve most claims they hear, while others approve almost none, federal data show. ...

Congress and the agency's inspector general have begun looking at the disparity. Yet both Social Security officials and advocates for the disabled say they are reluctant to interfere with the judges' independence.

"Congress has been pretty enthusiastic about the idea of ALJ independence," said Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, adding that only "a handful" of judges have approval ratings above or below average.

Chained CPI Under Consideration

RJ Eskow writes at the Huffington Post that switching the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to the "chained CPI" method is under serious consideration. That may sound very technical but there is no question about it, switching to the "chained CPI" method would reduce future COLAs and would result over time in significantly lower benefits.

Retired ALJ Borowiec Writes Book

Retired Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Frank Borowiec of Chamblee, Georgia, has written a book with the title Upholding the Rule of Law in the Social Security Administration, An Agency At War With Itself, about the efforts that he and others made to eliminate the disability claims backlog at Social Security. Borowiec had worked for Social Security in Atlanta. His career included two years as the Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge in Atlanta. Here is some information on the book from the Dunwoody [Georgia] Crier:

The word "frustration" crops up often when Borowiec talks about his experiences as an ALJ handling disability claims cases. "You feel as you hear each case that you can correct an injustice, but [claimants] waited so long for a decision," Borowiec said, adding that sometimes people can become impoverished during an appeal, even losing their home. "When a check comes, it doesn't make up for the loss," he said.

For most of the book, Borowiec cites legal proceedings, governmental reports and SSA regulations in making his case for the changes he believed would eliminate the disability claims backlog. The book points out bureaucratic incongruities that thwarted that effort. For example, individual states and not the SSA make initial disability determinations. State operations are funded by the SSA, but disability decisions are not based on SSA laws and regulations, rather, a "manual" that attempts to interpret them. The manual has no legal standing and ALJs and the courts cannot use or reference it in their decisions.

 The book is available for $12.71 from Amazon. It was 1,838,249 in Amazon's ranking of books when I looked at it. I have not read it yet but I am sure it deserves better than that.

Update: It's soared up to 115,196 in Amazon's rankings!