Even Those Accused Of Doing Bad Things Are Entitled To Due Process

     From a recent addition to Social Security's HALLEX manual:

Under sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Social Security Act (Act), the Social Security Administration (SSA) must immediately redetermine the entitlement of individuals to monthly disability benefits if there is reason to believe that fraud or similar fault was involved in the individual's application for such benefits. A redetermination is a re-adjudication of the individual's application for benefits, based on the agency's finding that fraud or similar fault was involved in an individual's application for monthly disability benefits. The agency may be required to initiate a redetermination based on an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) referral of information pursuant to section 1129(l) of the Act or information from a criminal prosecutor with jurisdiction over potential or actual related criminal cases. ... 

The Deputy Commissioner of ODAR will determine which ODAR component is designated to redetermine the affected case(s). ... 

Based on OIG [Office of Inspector General] referrals of information pursuant to section 1129(l) of the Act or information obtained through other criminal, congressional, or administrative investigation, the agency may direct an ODAR adjudicator to disregard certain evidence.

     There are a couple of problems here. Administrative Law Judges are required to be assigned to hear cases in rotation insofar as practical. If Social Security gets to decide which "component" gets to hear a case isn't Social Security getting to decide which ALJ hears the case? Social Security could assign the case to the Anchorage hearing office with its 14% reversal rate for instance.  If the agency wants to set up some special cadre of judges selected using some neutral criteria to hear these cases that's one thing but that's not what they're talking about. Second, Social Security gets to decide which evidence the ALJ can and can't hear? Are you kidding me? Did anyone at Social Security give serious consideration to how this might look to a federal court? 

Off The Shelf

     Social Security has posted a "Request for Information" seeking "sources capable of providing a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software solution designed to help detect and analyze sophisticated cases of fraud, waste, and abuse."

     Because, of course, such "sophisticated cases of fraud, waste and abuse" must exist and it must be possible to find them using a computer program.

Congressman Introduces Bill To Halt Service Cuts -- It's Going Nowhere

     A Democratic Congressman from Iowa is introducing legislation which would require that Social Security continue offering Social Security number printouts and benefits verification letters at the agency's field offices. Of course, the legislation has no chance of advancing.
     Update: And Senator Grassley (R-IA) expresses his concern. Undoubtedly, he blames Social Security management. It couldn't possibly be Social Security's appropriation.

10th Circuit Rules In Favor Of Same Sex Marriage -- How Many States Will This Affect?

     The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision of a District Court that struck down Utah's law banning same sex marriages. Undoubtedly, the state of Utah will ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. In the meantime, they'll ask that the decision be stayed. If the Supreme Court refuses to grant a stay, it's a pretty good sign that the Court will affirm and all states will have to allow same sex marriages.

     Where does this leave Social Security? The agency has a policy on application of decisions of the Courts of Appeals. However, that policy only concerns interpretations of the Social Security Act. This is the Constitution being interpreted, not the Social Security Act. I don't think that Social Security has any policy on this. In any case, it's clear that this will be the Department of Justice's call, not Social Security's. At a minimum, if the decision of the 10th Circuit decision isn't stayed, this will have to be applied throughout the 10th Circuit area, which is Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Would the Department of Justice decide to apply this beyond the 10th Circuit since the Administration would be in agreement and there is no conflicting decision of a Court of Appeals? What if we have three or four other Courts of Appeals coming down with similar decisions over the next three months? Would the Department of Justice then say to apply this nationally?

Newspaper Wants Conn Out Of Social Security Cases

     An editorial in the Lexington, KY Herald-Leader calls for Social Security to bar Eric Conn, who has been accused of unethical conduct, from practicing before the agency. However, the paper notes that Kentucky politicians don't seem concerned about Conn.

"An Air Of Surprising Passivity" In The Face Of Harsh Budget Cuts?

     From R.J. Eskow:

Despite the fact that a Democratic president is running the Executive Branch, the Social Security Administration appears to be accepting the harsh budget cuts imposed upon it by Congress with an air of surprising passivity. This is puzzling. Social Security is an enormously successful and popular program. Historically only conservative Republicans have urged cuts to its administrative budget. Those cuts are already frustrating the public and undermining public confidence in the program. ...

And yet, these needless and harmful cuts are being accepted as a fait accompli by both the NAPA panel and the Social Security Administration itself. The SSA's "Agency Strategic Plan for 2014-2018,"  which is published where the "strategic vision" document might logically be found, glosses over current and impending staffing reductions with language like this: "In the coming years, as we prepare for more employee retirements and continued budget constraints, we will develop and implement a strong succession plan to prepare for the new skills, competencies and work styles of a leaner, modern Federal workforce."

English translation: We are downsizing for budget reasons but would rather not say too much about it. ...

The fact that neither the SSA, the Administration, nor the President himself are publicly fighting these brutal cuts is a betrayal of Social Security's promise.  ...

Today's Office Closure News

     Local officials in Northern Erie County, NY are so upset by the closing of Social Security's Amherst, NY field office that they're setting up a link to the nearest Social Security field office via Skype at a local government site. The site will only be open a few hours, one or two days a week but locals it's better than nothing. The Amherst field office had served 36,000 people a year.

     Meanwhile, the Salem News wonders why it is that Social Security gets more money each year and claims to be getting more efficient but is still closing field offices. They conclude that no one should be surprised because "It is the federal government, after all." The Salem News misses a few points. Social Security's budget hasn't been going up each year. It's been going down when you consider inflation even though the agency's workload has gone up dramatically because of the aging of the baby boom population but, hey, what are a few details like that?

Forcing Video Hearings On Claimants

     From a notice that Social Security will post in the Federal Register tomorrow:

In this final rule, before we assign an ALJ to the case or before we schedule a hearing, we will notify a claimant that he or sh e has the right to object to appearing at the hearing by video teleconferencing. If the claimant objects to appearing at the hearing by video teleconferencing, the claimant must tell us in writing within 30 days after the date he or she receives the notice, unless he or she shows good cause for missing the deadline. If we receive a timely objection, or we find there was good cause for missing the deadline, we will schedule the claimant for an in person hearing, with one limited exception. If a claimant moves to a different residence while his or her request for a hearing is pending, we will determine whether the claimant will appear in person or by video teleconferencing, even if the claimant previously objected to appearing by video teleconferencing. In addition, in order for us to consider a change in residence when scheduling a hearing, the claimant must submit evidence verifying a new residence. After we receive evidence regarding the claimant’s new residence, we will decide how the claimant’s appearance will be made.