Binder And Binder No Longer Getting Medical Records

     I'm hearing that Binder and Binder, which is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, is telling Social Security's hearing offices that it can no longer afford to update medical records on the people it represents. Binder and Binder is asking Social Security to do it. 

     Social Security isn't going to do it, at least not routinely. Many decades ago the agency could do this but not today. The staffing isn't there. This means that Binder and Binder's clients won't be competently represented. Most people would argue that they never were but now there's no argument.

     This raises some questions in my mind:

• What kind of idiots are running Binder and Binder now? The company is still in business. They're still paying their employees. They're still paying rent on their offices. They're still paying for phone service. How can they continue to stay in business if they're not going to pay for medical records? It's basic to what they do. Getting medical records is not inexpensive but it's not that big a deal. It only runs to about 2% of my firm's total expenditures, far less than what my firm pays in salaries and rent.
• Charles Binder is listed as the attorney of record for most of the claimants that Binder and Binder represents. While the Binder and Binder that just went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy isn't a law firm, Charles Binder is definitely licensed to practice law. What are his ethical obligations as an attorney when he knows that he is incapable of providing them with competent representation? Doesn't he have an ethical obligation to withdraw from representing them or at least to warn them? If Binder and Binder is sending letters to Social Security saying that it can no longer pay for medical records, is it sending copies of this letter to its clients? Shouldn't Charles Binder insist that this letter be sent to his clients?
• What are Social Security's obligations in this situation? Should it warn Binder and Binder's clients? Is there anything more it can do? Could it contact the New York bar about the situation since that is where Charles Binder is licensed?

What Would You Do?

     Back in May we received a fee of $5,911 on a client. That's what the "maximum fee" of $6,000 comes to after the "user fee." On November 20, we received a fee of $65.86. I sent the $65.86 back to the Social Security field office since it was in excess of what we are supposed to receive. Today, I received another check for $65.86 in the case.

     I could send the money back to Social Security but they may reissue the check to me once again. I could send the money to my client since it's almost certainly supposed to go to him but later Social Security may declare me overpaid by $65.86 and they won't care that I sent the money directly to the client. As far as they're concerned, it's always their money that's been overpaid and a direct payment to the client doesn't resolve the overpayment. I could tear up the check but the money really should go to the client. I could spend a lot of time on the phone trying to convince Social Security to take the money back from me and reissue it to my client but it's only $65.86 and it may not matter how much time we spend on the phone about this.

     What would you do?

NCSSMA Newsletter On Dramatic Decline In Service

     The National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security's management personnel, has issued its December 2014 newsletter. Here's an excerpt from the President's Corner column:

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, the wheels started coming off [at Social Security] as FOs [Field Offices] and TSCs [Teleservice Centers] went into a deep hiring freeze, with virtually no hiring for three and a half years. In addition, in FY 2011 and FY 2013, the hours FOs were open to the public were reduced by about 23% ... All of this was occurring as demands for our services increased due to baby boomers retiring and filing for disability.

Consequently, SSA’s waiting times went up, on average 50%, to levels never before seen. The average time to get an appointment increased to a month or more, while many FOs ran out of appointments each day and calendars were often extended to the maximum of 60 days.

The agency’s telephone answering rates dropped dramatically, with many FOs below 50%. TSC answering rates also took a dramatic drop and in FY 2014, with a decreased answering rate of 54%, callers waited, on average, 22 minutes to speak with a Teleservice Service Representative (TSR). 

Fortunately, FOs and TSCs were allowed to do a substantial amount of hiring in the second half of FY 2014, replacing about half of their staffing losses. SSA’s service levels will not immediately improve because new hires must be trained and staff attrition continues. Much will depend on SSA’s ability to continue to hire as annual staffing losses neutralize hiring gains.

Senior Attorney Decisions Resuming?

     My firm has received senior attorney decisions this month in two cases from two different hearing offices. These are the first we have seen since August 2013. 

     To what extent is the senior attorney program being resumed? Had it ever gone away completely? What about re-recon? Is that coming back?

     Given the backlog, both programs should be resumed in a big way, if there is enough staffing.

It's Not Just Overpayments

     From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

SSA [Social Security Administration] needs to improve its controls to ensure it properly pays underpayments due terminated beneficiaries. Based on our random sample, we estimate that 

• 55,925 terminated beneficiaries were due $122.6 million in underpayments that SSA should have paid to eligible beneficiaries, and
• 5,687 terminated beneficiaries had $5.2 million in erroneous underpayments that SSA should have removed from the [Social Security's records]

FBA Social Security Law Section Newsletter

     The Social Security Law Section of the Federal Bar Association has published its Winter 2015 newsletter. There's a great Federal Case Law Update, an article by Judge Robert Pratt, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa and a fine article on suicide among Social Security disability claimants.

Goodbye Christmas!

December 26