A Top Ten List

     Below are some numbers from yesterday's Wall Street Journal article. These are the top ten individual recipients of fees for representing Social Security claimants in 2010, the amount received and their headquarters location. These are individuals, not entities. Some fees  are attributed to individual employees of larger entities and sometimes to just one individual at the head of such an entity making these numbers meaningful only in a relative sense. In all, or almost all, cases the total fees received by the entity are much higher, in the case of Binder and Binder almost four times as much.

1. Charles Binder	$22,817,430.62	Hauppauge, N.Y.
2. Thomas Nash	$6,292,296.41	Chicago
3. Eric Conn	$3,815,512.96	Stanville, Ky.
4. Michael Sullivan	$3,614,429.13	Lousiville, Ky.
5. Frank Latour	$3,464,262.24	Colton, Calif.
6. Ronald Miller	$3,241,150.42	Santa Monica, Calif.
7. Juan Hernandez Rivera	$2,816,311.80	Bayamon, Puerto Rico
8. Robert Friedman	$2,531,046.93	Seattle
9. Matthew Greenbaum	$2,004,375.65	New Orleans
10. Thomas Bothwell	$1,668,758.92	Yakima, Wash.

Merry Christmas

New Regs On Representatives Tomorrow

The new regulations on representatives will appear in the Federal Register tomorrow. It seems clear that these are intended as a response to the Wall Street Journal story. Social Security used an old proposal on recognizing entities as the basis for this although I think there is little connection between the two.

Binder And Binder Piece In Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal is running its long anticipated story on Binder and Binder. I have not yet been able to read anything other than the blurb available so far online.
Here is a link to the full article.

What Is Social Security Up To?

      I don't know what this means. Perhaps, it means little. However, Social Security sent over to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a proposed final regulation on November 14, 2011. The proposed regulation would alter the agency's "rules of conduct and standards of responsibility for representatives." The rules cleared OMB on December 20. We have no idea what  is in this since there was no Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) as there usually is. The NPRM process allows public comment before final rules are adopted. It's been a few years since I've studied the rulemaking portions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) but my recollection is that the NPRM process can only be dispensed with if the rules are pretty minor or are needed on an emergency basis. So, what could this be? It's hard to imagine anything  to do with this topic that would either be minor or  needed on an emergency basis. What is also unusual is that these rules cleared OMB in near record time, slightly over a month. All of Social Security's other regulatory proposals pending at OMB have been there longer.
     I suspect that Social Security intends to publish these very quickly, probably before the new year. Otherwise, why the rush to get them out of OMB?

Merry Christmas

Hiring More ALJs? Decline In Disability Claims?

     There is a report at the ALJ Discussion Forum that Social Security intends to hire 107 Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in September 2012. The same person also reports that there has been a decline in the number of disability claims filed in the last three months, particularly in October. 

     I do not doubt that Social Security wants to hire more ALJs next year. I would be very surprised if they have the money to do so. This sounds like a plan that is likely to be out of the question because of Social Security's budget crunch.
     By the way, if you're ready to ascribe the reduction in the number of disability claims filed to the reduction in unemployment, take a look at the numbers for the unemployment rate this year:

• January 9.0 
• February 8.9 
• March 8.8 
• April 9.0 
• May 9.1 
• June 9.2 
• July 9.1 
• August 9.1
• September 9.1
• October 9.0
• November 8.6 

     The reduction in unemployment, unfortunately, is modest and almost all of the reduction happened in November, not October. If you still believe that the rate of unemployment determines changes in the number of disability claims filed, why didn't we hear about a big increase in the number of disability claims filed between March and June of this year?

Merry Christmas