Expediting For 100% Service Connected Vets -- A Bad Idea

     Yesterday, Social Security announced a plan to expedite Social Security disability claims for veterans who have been found 100% disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Let me explain why that was a bad decision. 

• This is NOT about expediting disability claims for wounded warriors. Social Security was already doing that. This announcement expedites disability claims for veterans whose disabilities are NOT the result of combat. You ask how that can be. Easy. A veteran gets VA service connected benefits for virtually ANY disability incurred while in military service. Heart attacks, cancer, off base automobile accidents, rheumatoid arthritis, kidney failure, etc. The only things excluded are disabilities which are the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs 
• To expedite disability claims for one group of people is to delay them for everyone else, which is no minor matter when we consider the severity of the backlogs at Social Security. Vets receiving 100% service connected VA benefits for non-combat related disabilities are undeserving of this special attention because they already have substantial incomes of more than $2,800 per month. They can be hurting somewhat financially but most Social Security disability claimants are hurting much worse because they do not have any disability benefit from their former employer. If anyone gets expediting, it should be those who are in serious financial distress, not vets already receiving 100% service connected benefits. 
• This new policy makes it NO more likely that vets drawing 100% service connected benefits will be approved for disability benefits by Social Security. It's only expediting. I strongly suspect that this was a cynical attempt to head off legislative proposals that would automatically grant Social Security disability benefits to those who had been approved for 100% service connected VA benefits.

     Vets deserve our respect. We owe them a lot. They certainly deserve compensation for their service connected disabilities. Those who are disabled by combat related injuries deserve special treatment at Social Security. However, vets with non-combat disabilities don't deserve to have their disability claims expedited at Social Security.

Proposed Regs On Submission Of All Medical Records

     Social Security has published  proposed regulations in the Federal Register requiring disability claimants and their attorneys or other representatives to notify the agency or submit all medical records concerning a Social Security disability claim.

     This proposal includes a statement that "When you submit evidence from another source, you must submit that evidence in its entirety." I don't know how to interpret this other than to mean that if I request a hospital record, I must request and submit the whole thing, which can easily run over 1,000 pages on a single hospitalization. Even an overnight hospitalization will result in hundreds of pages of records. The proposal says explicitly that Social Security intends to simplify matters by removing all discretion from the claimant and attorney. I could, in the alternative, simplify notify Social Security that the claimant was in the hospital but these days it's unlikely that an ALJ would, on his or her own, request the hospital record. In terms of outpatient records, if the claimant has been going to the same physician for 20 years, if I'm going to obtain and submit the record, I don't see how I can limit it to a particular time period. I would have to request the entire record. Social Security says that I have no discretion. Also, I don't see how I can not request lab reports, x-ray reports and other documents contained in the physician's records. I would have no discretion.

     By the way, if I, as an attorney representing a Social Security disability claimant, has no discretion to not request the entirety of any medical record, why should Social Security?

     I think that Social Security means well but this is unworkable. On its face, it wouldn't increase the quantity of medical records that claimants and their attorneys submit; it would reduce it by making it impractical for an attorney to obtain and submit many records.

House Social Security Subcommittee Schedules Hearing

     The House Social Security Subcommittee has scheduled a hearing for 10:00 on February 26 on:

[T]he Acting Commissioner’s plan and legislative recommendations for preventing conspiracy fraud.  The Subcommittee will also hear the recommendations of public and private sector experts to stop disability fraud schemes before benefits are awarded and to deter criminals from attempting to cheat the system.

     Disability fraud schemes are actually almost non-existent at Social Security and not that hard to identify when they do occur but that won't stop Republicans from scheduling these hearings. You say, nonsense, I've been reading about all these fraud conspiracies at Social Security. Really? How closely did you read those stories? There have been three recent "schemes" alleged. One was in Puerto Rico. It's being prosecuted. As described by Social Security, that scheme was unsophisticated and easily identified. If the charges are true, those involved were fools, which is not surprising since most criminals are fools. A second, similar scheme is alleged in New York City but the local U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute, a fact which should cause any reasonable person to wonder just how strong the evidence is. In the third case, there have been lurid allegations of bribery and other wrongdoing in the Kentucky-West Virginia border area but no one has been charged. These is reason for concern about those allegations since the people making the allegations are suing to try to recover money. They have a financial motivation. The Department of Justice has refused to get involved in that civil lawsuit, suggesting that the charges will be difficult to prove even by a preponderance of the evidence standard, not to mention the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that applies to criminal cases.

     By the way, it should now be obvious why the Acting Commissioner wanted to rush out the proposed "submit all the evidence" regulations.

Memo To ALJs: Schedule 50 A Month And You Can Have Telework

     From a memorandum sent to all Social Security Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) today by the Chief ALJ:

... Considering the necessity for quality, timely, and policy compliant hearings and decisions, and historical data, scheduling an average of at least fifty (50) cases for hearing per month will generally signify a reasonably attainable number for the purposes of this contractual provision [the contract is between Social Security and the ALJ union]. I want to emphasize that this provision concerns the number of hearings scheduled, not cases heard or dispositions issued. Accordingly, if you schedule at least an average of fifty (50) cases for hearing per month during a twelve-month rolling cycle, then management generally will determine you have scheduled a reasonably attainable number of cases for hearing for the purposes of this contractual provision. Conversely, if you schedule fewer than an average of fifty (50) cases for hearing per month during a twelve-month rolling cycle, then management likely will determine you have not scheduled a reasonably attainable number of cases for hearing, unless there are extenuating circumstances. ... 

When, after consideration of all factors, management determines that you have not scheduled a reasonably attainable number of cases for hearing, they will inform you of the determination and of the possibility that your ability to telework may be restricted. If management concludes there is no acceptable reason for not scheduling a reasonably attainable number of hearings, then they may restrict telework by not approving telework or canceling previously approved telework days. Again, management will consider any extenuating circumstances in making this determination....

Speed Up For 100% Disabled Vets

     From the Baltimore Sun:

The Social Security Administration plans to streamline its review of disability claims for veterans starting next month, shaving weeks off the process by which it determines benefits, officials are set to announce Wednesday. ...

Under the new policy, applicants who have been deemed 100 percent disabled by the VA are to be put on a "fast track" at virtually every step of the process. ...

The change won't make it any more likely veterans will receive benefits, officials say — just that they'll get a decision more quickly. ...

     Update: And, here's the announcement but it's brief and a bit vague. If there are staff instructions, they haven't been released to the public yet.

Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder

     Last June, the American Psychiatric Association issued the 5th Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This included the new diagnostic category of Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder. This was primarily aimed at children and adolescents. It is a type of mood disorder. It fits poorly into Social Security's childhood listing for mood disorders.

     I'm guessing that Social Security must have given some guidance to the Disability Determination Services (DDS) on how to handle diagnoses of Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder but I haven't seen any. Does anyone have a copy they can shoot my way? You can send feedback to Social Security News, anonymously if you wish. You have to enter valid domain name but the rest can be bogus if you wish. However, you can't send attachments.

"Paper Options" And Social Security

     From the Washington Post:

As the Obama administration pushes to do more business over the Internet, finally seeking to close the technology gap with the private sector, the digital makeover is running into a dogged opponent called Consumers for Paper Options.

The group is working the halls of Congress in closed-door meetings, underwriting research favorable to its position and mounting a news media campaign in an effort to preserve Washington as the capital of paper — and slow the move away from printed checks, forms and other paper communication.

The lobbying group has had some recent victories, including language tucked into last month’s budget deal that requires the government to plan for resuming paper delivery of annual Social Security earnings statements to some of the nation’s 150 million future retirees. And it’s been claiming these wins in the name of the elderly and low-income Americans the Internet has left behind.

Except Consumers for Paper Options is a creation of the paper industry.

A Poll

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com