This Is Interesting

     Not too long ago someone told me that this example had been added to Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS):

A 50-year-old claimant with a high school education and unskilled past relevant work has an RFC [Residual Functional Capacity] for standing/walking 2 hours of an 8-hour day and sitting approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour day. He is able to lift/carry/push/pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. This RFC falls between rule 201.12, which has a decision of disabled, and 202.13, which has a decision of not disabled. In this case, use rule 201.12 as a framework for a decision of disabled because the definitions in DI 25001.001 (Medical-Vocational Quick Reference Guide) indicate light work usually requires walking or standing for approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour day. Since the claimant can only walk or stand for 2 hours, he has a significantly reduced capacity to perform light work and a sedentary medical-vocational rule applies as a framework for a determination.

     I posted about this. Not long after I posted about it, without any announcement of a change, the example disappeared from the POMS section to which I cited. However, you can still see the example on the transmittal sheet, which is available online, which notified the various components of the agency about this and other changes. As long as it's there, it's going to be cited to courts and Administrative Law Judges. So, now, the question is whether the example will disappear from the transmittal sheet? Will the agency pretend that none of this ever happened? I've heard of the concept of a non-person. Can there be a non-thing? Can Social Security permanently erase this from the memory bank?

Social Security Pays 18 Sexual Predators

     From a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

We identified 18 sexual predators who were involuntarily confined in 4 SCCs [Special Commitment Centers] and who improperly received approximately $524,000 in Social Security benefits and/or Supplemental Security Income payments. 

Our review indicated that, after States transferred these sexual predators from prison to an SCC, the individuals contacted SSA to apply for benefits or request resumption of payments that SSA had suspended while they were incarcerated. While benefit suspension provisions continued to apply to these individuals, a mechanism had not been established to ensure SCCs reported inmate information to SSA. Consequently, SSA did not have the information it needed to prevent initiation of payments to these individuals.

     This can easily be sensationalized and probably will be but it's a quite minor issue affecting only a handful of cases. It will be quickly resolved.

Don't Let The Tail Wag The Dog

     Let my explain why Social Security has a rule that allows a few severely disabled people onto benefits, in part, because of their inability to read and write in English, even though they live in Puerto Rico and are able to read and write in Spanish. It's fairly simple. Social Security is a national program. What is the agency supposed to do? Put someone on disability benefits when they're living in New York but cut them off once they move to Puerto Rico? Deny their claim while they're living in Puerto Rico but allow it as soon as they move to New York? It's not only impractical to have different rules for different locations; it's probably unconstitutional. What are you going to say next -- that inability to read and write in English has no effect upon a person's ability to hold down a job? You're not going to be able to do a surveillance system monitor job if you can't communicate in English. You can still be an agricultural laborer or a landscaper but when you get to the point in the grid regulations where ability to communicate in English is an issue, laboring jobs are already off the table because of the claimant's physical impairments. In fact, most jobs are off the table throughout most of the country if you can't communicate in English. So what do you want? A rule that may seem a bit odd when applied to a handful of people in Puerto Rico or a rule that's very unfair when applied across most of the country?

Latching Onto 218 Cases As Basis For Changes Affecting Millions Of Cases

     A press release:

The Social Security Administration's (SSA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently issued a report on the determination of disability claims from applicants who cannot communicate in English. The OIG found at least 218 cases in Puerto Rico where a disability rule was applied to the advantage of a claimant who was unable to communicate in English, even though Spanish is one of the island's official languages.

Chairman Sam Johnson has previously called attention to these "grid rules" as one of the challenges facing the Disability Insurance program. In 2012, the Government Accountability Office released a report requested by Chairman Johnson, which found the SSA relies on an outdated view of disability. In 2014, he introduced H.R. 5260, the Stop Disability Fraud Act of 2014, which would require the SSA to update the grid rules for the first time since they were created in 1979.

In response to the OIG report, Chairman Johnson made the following statement:

"As part of my commitment to the disability community and the American taxpayer, I am looking for ways to make the disability program work better, and updating the grid rules to reflect today's world is one way to do so. It makes absolutely no sense that Social Security has been relying on rules that are over 35 years old to determine if someone should receive benefits. While I am encouraged that Social Security is finally getting around to taking a look at these rules, I will be introducing legislation to make sure they actually do so. The American people expect Social Security to use common sense, not outdated thinking, when determining who should receive disability benefits."

Number Drawing Disability Benefits Drops For Sixth Straight Month

     New figures released by the Social Security Administration show that the number of people drawing Social Security disability benefits has dropped for the sixth straight month.

     By the way, when I have posted about these numbers in the past, a few people have tried to make points about increases or decreases in the number of claims filed or approved from month to month. Don't bother. Here's what the fine print at the bottom of the table says:

Because the application data are tabulated on a weekly basis, some months include 5 weeks of data while others include only 4 weeks. This weekly method of tabulation accounts for much of the month-to-month variation in the monthly application data. This method also occasionally causes quarterly data to have either 12 or 14 weeks of data instead of 13 weeks, annual data may include an extra week of data.

     This doesn't reduce the validity of the bottom line of the number of people drawing benefits since there is an equal effect upon the number going on and coming off benefits.

Grid Regs On The Table

     Social Security is planning to issue an "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the need to update the medical-vocational guidelines." Inability to speak English in Puerto Rico may be on the table but who knows what else.

     I understand the desire to head off destructive legislation but let's not get carried away. The Republican problem with Social Security disability isn't with the way the regulations are written. Their problem is with its very existence. Nothing the agency can do will mollify them. If anything they may see this sort of thing as a sign of weakness.

Clinton Muir 1918-2015

     Clinton H. Muir, the retired chief of Social Security's Mid-Atlantic Program Service Center, has died at age 93.

They're Starting To Worry That Democrats Might Be Serious About Increasing Social Security

     The Wall Street Journal is starting to be concerned that Democrats will actually run on increasinging Social Security benefits. Their concern about the effects on the budget of increasing Social Security might sound sincere until you realize that the Wall Street Journal always supports any tax cut regardless of the consequences.