Most ODAR Workers To Return To Work

     I have heard from multiple sources that most employees of the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) will be returning to work tomorrow. To this point during the shutdown almost all ODAR employees other than the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have been furloughed. This meant that hearings were going forward but few decisions could be issued. Also, there was no way to prepare cases for future scheduling. The Appeals Council, which has been completely shut down, is also reopening for business tomorrow.

     There are still problems with federal court work on Social Security cases. While the federal courts are open, Social Security's attorneys and other employees who work on these cases are furloughed. This will cause delays but, at least, it affects a much smaller number of people.

What Is Alleged

     Here is a brief summary of the allegations made at the Senate Homeland Security and Government Operations Committee hearing today with some comments from me in brackets on how these allegations fit into the Social Security Act, regulations and practices:

• Eric Conn represented claimants over an area covering the territories of several hearing offices. Conn's clients routinely waived a hearing with the hearing office where they lived and asked for a hearing near Conn's office. [Nothing improper here or ever unusual in an occasional case but accommodating Conn to this extent was unusual.]
• Conn's cases were routinely assigned to different Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in the hearing office but one ALJ, Judge Daugherty, went into the computer system and reassigned all of Conn's cases to himself. [If true, this was highly improper. It shouldn't have happened. Hearing office management should have stopped this immediately. If true, this should have brought about Daugherty's removal from his position as an ALJ. Anyone in a supervisory position at Social Security who was aware of this but failed to act should also be in serious trouble.]
• Daugherty had regular telephone conversations with Conn during which he would tell Conn what sort of medical evidence he needed to see before approving each of the claimants Conn represented. [An occasional telephone conversation of this sort about a specific claimant isn't unusual. An ALJ might say something such as "I think that Mr. Jones has a strong case that I could approve without a hearing but I'd like to see some updated medical evidence. Can you get me updated records from Dr. Smith?" There's nothing wrong with that. However, I have never previously heard of something like what is alleged here. If true, it is clearly unprofessional behavior that should have brought about Daugherty's removal from office and Conn's suspension from Social Security practice. Anyone in a supervisory position who was aware of this but failed to act should be in serious trouble.]
• Conn would schedule medical examinations with physicians he selected in order to meet Daugherty's requests. Conn would use physicians with seriously checkered pasts. Conn would give the physician a form to sign that Conn had already filled out. Conn used the previously completed forms in rotation. [If true, this is criminal, both on Conn's part and on the part of the physicians. Anyone in a supervisory position at Social Security who was aware of this but who failed to act should be in serious trouble.]
• Daugherty would approve all of Conn's cases. 
• Almost $100,000 was deposited in Daugherty's bank accounts that he could not explain. No allegation was made that the money came from Conn but this was suggested. [Obviously, if the money came from Conn, this is criminal behavior on the part of Conn and Daugherty.]

     Update: There are allegations that Social Security employees who made the allegations suffered reprisals from Social Security management and that Conn arranged for surveillance of one or more of them.
     AP article on hearing.

Senate Hearing At 3:00

     The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs hearing on Social Security disability benefits is to start at 3:00 EDT. It will be televised on C-SPAN 3. That will be both a cable and a streaming video feed.

    Update: It's not on C-SPAN -- they changed their minds about broadcasting it --  but it can be watched on the Committee website.

Vigorous Response To Sixty Minutes

     Media Matters has a blog post up concerning the criticism that the Sixty Minutes piece on the Social Security disability programs has received from national disability organizations.

     Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times calls the Sixty Minutes story "shameful." He notes that the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who told Sixty Minutes how easy it is to get Social Security disability benefits were singing a different tune in 2009. At that time, they said that the standards were too tight!
    The Center for Economic and Policy Research has posted a criticism of the Sixty Minutes story on its blog.

Journalistic Ethics?

     Sixty Minutes had Jennifer Griffith and Sarah Carver speaking on camera about the alleged criminal behavior of Eric Conn without mentioning that Griffith and Carver are suing Conn in federal court seeking massive qui tam damages. Shouldn't that detail have been mentioned? Shouldn't Sixty Minutes have also mentioned that the federal government usually takes over meritorious qui tam actions but decided not to take over this qui tam action, which basically means that the federal government thinks that the charges made by Griffith and Carver can't be proven?

Why Is Eric Conn Operating Out Of Double Wides If He's Rolling In Dough?

     By the way, if Eric Conn has made such vast sums off representing Social Security disability claimants, why is he operating out of double wides? I know that Lincoln statue cost a fair amount of money and I know we're talking about an area where many, many people live in double wides but, still, why wouldn't he be operating out of decent office space if he's rolling in dough?

What The Debt Ceiling Showdown Is About

     From Jonathan Chait writing for New York Magazine:

[The Obama Administration sees] the debt-ceiling fight as being mainly about the long-term question of whether Congress will cement into place the practice of using the debt ceiling to extort concessions from the president. The price of buying off a debt-ceiling hike would surely be less than the risk of a default. But doing so would enshrine debt-ceiling extortion as a normal congressional practice. This both skews the Constitutional relationship between branches — allowing an unscrupulous Congress to demand unilateral concessions at gunpoint rather than having to compromise — and creates endless brinksmanship that would eventually lead to a default.

Didn't Know My Own Strength

     There's more at the CBS website on how brave they and Senator Coburn are to buck the powerful "disability industry."