No COLA This Year?

     Looks like there will be no Social Security Cost Of Living Adjustment this year. If I remember correctly, the announcement is due out in mid-October.

CCD Benefit Offset Proposal

     There are signs of a possible consensus forming in favor of some tinkering with the work incentives for Social Security disability benefits, probably some sort of benefit offset program, as the "price" for extending the life of the Social Security Disability Trust Fund. The Social Security Task Force of the Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), a major umbrella group, has released its benefit offset proposal. I won't detail the whole proposal but the most important parts are the elimination of the Trial Work Period and Extended Period of Eligibility combined with a benefit offset program whereby claimants would lose one dollar for every two they earn over the amount required to trigger a trial work period month, currently $780 per month.

     First key question: Would the CCD proposal cost money or save money? I'm not sure. I doubt that it will have much effect either way.
     Second key question: Would the CCD proposal give further encouragement for claimants to return to work? The proposal would be easier for Social Security to administer, which is a good thing, but I don't think it would have any significant effect upon claimant behavior. Claimants already want to return to work. The problem isn't the incentives; it's the state of their health. Huge bargains won't induce people to shop at a store if the store's doors are locked.

   Third key question: Can any tinkering with work incentives achieve the goal of reducing program costs. The answer to this one is clear. You certainly can save money by tinkering with work incentives. All you have to do is to reduce the work incentives. Can someone come up with a proposal that reduces work incentives while simultaneously pretending that they are increasing work incentives? Probably. That's the sort of thing that politicians excel at. That may be where we're heading.
     Fourth key question: Is there really a consensus forming to only tinker with work incentives or is this just the game that Republicans play until after the election at which point they reveal their real plan to use the exhaustion of the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to force dramatic cuts?

The Goat Rodeo Continues For Eric Conn's Former Clients

     I've learned a few things about Social Security's re-adjudication of the disability claims of Eric Conn's former clients. Let me share some of what I've heard:

• In at least one case, Social Security's file contains reports from Drs. Huffnagel and Adkins, two of Eric Conn’s pet physicians. The report from Dr. Huffnagel has been excluded from consideration but the report from Dr. Adkins is supposed to be considered. Even though he also did work for Conn, Adkins was also working for Social Security. The agency wants the report that Adkins did for them considered. However, any reports that Adkins did at the behest of Eric Conn are excluded from consideration. He was an upstanding physician when he did work for Social Security but he was a crook when he did work for Eric Conn.
• The claimants who had medical exams at the behest of Eric Conn universally describe the exams as reasonably thorough. The claimants say the exams took about twenty minutes. The write-ups of the exams seem professional. There may be problems with forms completed by these physicians but there's no sign of problems with the exams or the exam reports themselves. For example, there seems to be no reason to disbelieve a report by one of these physicians that he detected crepitation in a claimant's knee. Nevertheless, everything from these physicians has been excluded – unless SSA ordered the exam.
• None of the claimants involved reports having been contacted by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) or the FBI.
• I had thought that Social Security must have given Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) more instructions for these cases than what is contained in the agency's HALLEX manual. It looks like I was both right and wrong. I was right in believing that they should have been given more instructions but wrong in believing that they must have given additional instruction. It appears that they didn't. The result is confusion. At least one ALJ has refused to admit any evidence dated after the prior ALJ decision. Other ALJs are pondering whether they should admit into evidence the reports from Conn’s pet physicians. Nobody has any idea what the process is for asking permission to consider developments in the claimant’s health condition after the date of the prior ALJ decision. It’s not clear that there is a procedure or that any such procedure would be consistent with the agency's regulations, ALJ independence and the prohibition on ex parte contacts.
• There are signs suggesting that no one at Social Security's St. Louis National Hearing Center, which is hearing the vast majority of these cases, has much enthusiasm for the task they’ve been given.
• So far, it looks like well over half of the claimants involved have not sought legal help. There is reason for concern that these claimants are so intimidated by the criminal investigation that they are too scared to do anything even though none of them has done anything remotely criminal.
• We’re still waiting on action from the District Court on the lawsuit aimed at stopping these hearings. The delay doesn’t seem like a good sign for these claimants since the Court knows that the hearings have begun. I’m pretty sure that there are those at Social Security who decided not to worry too much about what the agency was doing in these cases since they figured that the courts would intervene to stop this mess. I thought so too but it looks like we may have been wrong. The Court may dismiss the case on narrow technical grounds. That won't prevent these claimants from eventually getting relief. It just delays it until after these cases grind through the administrative process for a year or two.

This Is Wrong

     From EM-15034, just issued by Social Security:

Beginning September 25, 2015, the Social Security Administration (SSA) and VA initiated a weekly information exchange agreement in which the VA provides SSA with information concerning veterans who received the VA 100% P&T [Permanent and Total] disability compensation rating. With this release, when an individual contacts SSA, and their social security number is on our database as having the 100% P&T rating, our users will receive an immediate alert that we must expedite the case.

Additionally, when an alert identifies the individual as having this VA rating, no additional proof of the 100% P&T rating is necessary to expedite the case. ...

     We owe our veterans a lot but we don't owe veterans who have 100% VA ratings expediting on their Social Security disability claims. These vets aren't in great financial distress. They have their VA benefits. Other disabled people hurtle towards homelessness while vets who don't really need it get expediting. This is wrong.

Now If They Could Do An Honest Recalculation Of The Attorney User Fee ...

     A notice from Social Security in today's Federal Register:

We provide fee-based Social Security number (SSN) verification services to enrolled private businesses and government agencies who obtain a valid, signed consent form from the Social Security number holder. ...

To use CBSV [Consent Based Social Security Number Verification], interested parties must pay a one-time non-refundable enrollment fee of $5,000. Currently, users also pay a fee of $3.10 per SSN verification transaction in advance of services. We agreed to calculate our costs periodically for providing CBSV services and adjust the fees as needed. ...

Based on the most recent cost analysis, we will adjust the fiscal year 2016 fee to $1.40 per SSN verification transaction. New customers will still be responsible for the one-time $5,000 enrollment fee.

I Keep Asking: Does This Look Out Of Control?

     The number of people drawing Disability Insurance Benefits from the Social Security Administration declined in September. This number has declined in eleven of the last twelve months. The decline is happening because fewer claims are being filed and approved.

Outrage In Iowa

     From the Des Moines Register:

A judge’s long delays in deciding scores of backlogged Social Security disability cases have resulted in Iowa applicants losing their eligibility or homes, or even dying while waiting for benefits, a Des Moines Register investigation has found. ...

[T]he delays go back years, yet only in September were Gatewood’s back cases reassigned from the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in West Des Moines to another regional office in Topeka, Kan. ...

On average, disability applicants in Iowa wait about 13 months to get a judge to hear their cases. That's about a month less than others nationwide, according to Social Security data reviewed by the Register. Once the hearings are held, decisions typically follow within one to two months, lawyers here say.

But applicants among Gatewood's caseload often waited another year for a decision, and their lawyers say some people in desperate need are still waiting. ...

The Register's Watchdog probe was triggered by attorney David Leitner, who raised questions on behalf of client Shannon Hills.

Hills, 32, applied for disability benefits in 2013 after being denied twice before. Gatewood presided over her hearing in April.

But Leitner was notified last week that the case was among those transferred to Topeka. When he called to ask if a new hearing was scheduled, he was told 300 of Gatewood’s cases are in the pipeline there. ...

Tamara Wolff, 51, who suffered multiple heart attacks and a stroke that permanently damaged her eyesight, said she first applied for disability in 2009.

Gatewood finally heard her case on March 26, 2014, and Wolff was told she could expect a decision in about a month. Seven months later, after Wolff had been hospitalized several times, her lawyer sent a letter to the judge asking that she make the case a priority and expedite the ruling.

Still, no decision was rendered until April 18 — nearly 13 months after the hearing. ...

Lawyers say their clients have been afraid to speak out or complain because they don’t want to risk being denied benefits.

Jensen says 12 of her clients whose cases are being transferred had been waiting 12 to 18 months for a decision from Gatewood. ...

Administrative records from the Merit Systems Protection Board show the Social Security Administration's presiding administrative law judge tried to remove Gatewood from cases in Oklahoma more than a decade ago.

But Gatewood succeeded in an appeal in 2005, arguing that the agency had interfered with her judicial independence.

     I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, as terrible as this is, it affects only a limited number of people. The bigger outrage is that it's taking longer and longer to get a hearing in the first place. That affects everyone requesting a hearing on their claim for Social Security disability benefits. The backlog is rapidly rising to two years. There's every reason to believe it will just keep climbing beyond two years. This will, in effect, deprive claimants of any meaningful right to a hearing on their claim. Second, if you're an attorney with clients caught in a mess such as that described in this article, there is an avenue to relief -- mandamus. I've got an example of a mandamus complaint if anyone is interested. (And, for sticklers, yes I know that technically mandamus no longer exists but the exact same relief exists and everybody still calls it mandamus because we all remember Marbury v. Madison.)

SSAB Position Paper On Windfall Elimination Provision

     The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has released a position paper on the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) which reduces Social Security benefits when an individual has income from a pension derived from earnings not covered by Social Security. The SSAB recommends a "proportional formula." There has been agitation for some WEP fix for more than 30 years. I doubt that the SSAB position paper is going to make a difference.