Early Days At Social Security

Punch card operators entering data from form SC-5 in 1937

Updated Fee Payment Stats

     Social Security has issued updated numbers on payments of fees to attorneys and some others for representing Social Security claimants. These fees are withheld and paid by Social Security but come out of the back benefits of the claimants involved. The attorneys and others who have their fees withheld pay a user fee for this privilege. Since these fees are usually paid at the same time that the claimant is paid, these numbers show how quickly or slowly Social Security is able to get claimants paid after a favorable determination on their claims.

Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-13	32,663	$96,690,734.65
Feb-13	35,508	$102,242,540.93
Mar-13	45,189	$130,690,281.94
Apr-13	33,178	$92,566,832.32
May-13	42,841	$122,781,135.03
June-13	33,954	$97,627,420.68
July-13	35,221	$103,494,644.97
Aug-13	46,695	$129,774,228.90

Two Listings Expiration Dates Extended

     Social Security has extended the expiration dates of the Genitourinary Impairments and Hematological Disorders Listings until 2015. There is no other change.

More On Hearing Loss

     A friend of mine, Gilbert Laden, a Social Security attorney who practices in the Mobile-Pensacola area, sent me these comments on my post about Social Security's advance notice that it is reviewing its hearing listings:

As a faithful reader of your blog and as one with a lifelong hearing loss, I read with interest your item about the advance notice on SSA's [Social Security Administration's] proposed changes to the hearing loss listings and, more particularly, your comments.

I like to offer my perspective on those comments. I have a severe-to-profound loss. I wear two hearing aids. If I didn't, I could not hear normal speech. You would probably be yelling at me, but more on that later. While they are not substitutes for normal hearing, they have been and are instrumental in my ability to function in the hearing world. I disagree with your assertion that they just increase the volume of unintelligible sound.

I did not get my first hearing aid until age 6, a body aid I had to wear in my front pocket (there were no behind-the-ear, or BTE, models), and struggled in the first grade to the point that my teacher told my mother she didn't think I was going to make it. Fortunately, I found my stride. I did have to undergo 6 years of speech therapy as my speech was very poor.

My mother told me that when I first got my aid, I heard a sound which I had not heard before and asked her what it was. She told me it was the sound of birds chirping. She said she never forgot the look on my face. I have had my shares of ups-and-downs with my hearing loss, but have managed to do okay. 

By using the telecoil switch on my hearing aid, I can hear on the telephone (with my right, or "good" ear, the one with "only" a severe loss). With that same t-switch, I can use an assistive listening system and hear during oral argument in federal court.

I lipread. I depend on nonverbal communication. I guess. I still have problems, due to, as I said earlier, hearing aids not being substitutes for normal hearing. Although I wish they were better, I am grateful for them.

Now about communicating with your clients: don't shout at your hearing impaired clients. That distorts the sound and your lip movements for lip-readers. Some amplification of your voice is important, but enunciation, sitting a bit closer, and good lighting on your face (not behind you from a window, for example) and, yes, proper fitting of hearing aids (if they can afford them) will usually carry the day. The vast majority of individuals with hearing loss have some residual hearing that aids will help.

Since you are about the same age as me, let me offer this tidbit: One in three will have a hearing loss by age 65. The percentages go up as we get older.

Thank you for "hearing" me out

Vietnamese Immigrants Bring Class Action In San Diego Over Attorney Suspension

     From the Courthouse News Service:

Hundreds of disabled Vietnamese refugees claim in a federal class action that the Social Security Commissioner wrongfully suspended the only fluent Vietnamese-speaking attorney in San Diego, to retaliate for a previous class action that claimed a Social Security judge was biased.

Lead plaintiff Truyen Gia Phan sued Acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin in a federal class action, on behalf of a class of more than 1,000.

Truyen, his 25 named co-plaintiffs and the class all are "poor, disabled and non-English speaking Vietnamese former prisoner[s] of war and refugees in the United States" who have applied or will apply for Social Security benefits. All of them have been or will be represented by attorney Alexandra Nga Tran Manbeck.

Manbeck has been "providing indispensable representation to the Vietnamese plaintiffs who would otherwise be shut out of court by virtue of her fluency in the Vietnamese language and her ability to advise the plaintiffs in Vietnamese, since plaintiffs did not speak English and had no understanding of administrative and judicial proceedings," Truyen says in the complaint.

On March 12 this year, the Social Security Administration suspended Manbeck from the practice of Social Security law, the complaint states.

The class claims Manbeck was suspended to retaliate for her filing of a class action on behalf of Nazdar Alzayadi and Nora Donate in 2011, alleging bias from Administrative Law Judge Eve Godfrey. That case was dismissed, according to the new complaint. ...

The class claims the Social Security Administration suspended Manbeck for two classes of alleged violations: "filing of Request for Reconsideration and Request for Review in paper forms instead of being filed in electronic forms, and (2) the plaintiff's signing of boilerplate forms allowing the plaintiffs to ask the Commissioner to send payment checks to the plaintiffs' representative to pay outstanding costs."

No Peeking At The Internet While Adjudicating Disability Claims

     From HALLEX I-1-3-16 updated on August 30, 2013:

Generally, when adjudicating a claim, staff and adjudicators may not rely on information from the Internet that has not been corroborated by a Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit (CDIU). Further, entering an individual's personally identifiable information (PII) in an Internet search engine or social media network may compromise the confidentiality of PII. The responsibility to protect PII within an employee's control applies at all times, regardless of whether the employee is at an official duty station, another official work location, an alternate duty station, or off duty. This policy applies whether the individual is using a computer or personal device such as a smartphone. ...

The AC [Appeals Council] will also consider whether a referral to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (OCALJ) may be appropriate. ...

     However, another new transmittal, this one to HALLEX I-2-5-69, says that "While it is acceptable to verify inmate information on the Internet, it is not acceptable for an ALJ to instigate an independent investigation of a claimant's criminal history on the Internet." Does this mean that an adjudicator can verify that the claimant is a current inmate but not that he or she is a former inmate?

Happy Labor Day!

Christian Science Monitor On Disability Trust Fund

     The Christian Science Monitor is running a rather generic article quoting a couple of right wing sources who argue that the Disability Insurance Trust fund is running out of money and that something must be done soon.

     The Christian Science Monitor certainly has a distinguished history but does it still have any influence? Who reads it other than the obvious, Christian Scientist, a fairly small group?