New Instructions For Conn Cases

     Social Security just updated its HALLEX manual section pertaining to cases involving alleged "fraud or similar fault." Here are some excerpts with my comments in brackets:

• Except in unusual circumstances where individual case instruction is more appropriate, ODAR will draft specific processing instructions for any group of cases involving the same source(s) believed to have committed fraud or similar fault. [Did I miss the specific processing instructions for the Eric Conn cases or did SSA not release them? Are there secret instructions for these cases?]
• If SSA determined that fraud or similar fault was involved in the individual's application, SSA will provide detailed information regarding relevant criminal, civil, congressional, or administrative investigative findings and how they relate to the individual's application for benefits. SSA will associate copies of any relevant material(s) with the notice and in the claim(s) file. [I don’t remember seeing this “detailed information” in the Conn cases.]
• Under sections 205(u) and 1631(e)(7) of the Act, adjudicators do not have discretion to reconsider the issue of whether the identified evidence should be disregarded when based on an OIG referral of information or a referral based on information obtained during a criminal or other law enforcement investigation.
• However, when the redetermination is based solely on an SSA finding of fraud or similar fault, an adjudicator can consider a beneficiary's or recipient's objection to the disregarding of certain evidence. If the adjudicator is satisfied that fraud or similar fault was not involved in providing the evidence, he or she will consider the evidence. However, if the adjudicator disregards the evidence because a preponderance of the evidence shows that fraud or similar fault was involved in providing the evidence, he or she will address the beneficiary's or recipient's objection in his or her decision. [What? This sounds contradictory.]
• If the beneficiary or recipient submits evidence of an impairment that existed at the time of the original allowance date, but was not alleged on his or her application, SSA will generally consider that evidence. However, if the particular circumstances involved require that a certain type of evidence be disregarded, SSA may also disregard any newly submitted evidence involving that type of evidence. [What’s the standard here? What “particular circumstances” are you talking about?]

Of Course This Can't Be Extended Because It Would Put More People On Disability Benefits And That's Always A Bad Thing

     From the Social Security Bulletin, the agency's scholarly periodical publication:

Many homeless individuals with a serious mental illness are potentially eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, but the nature of their impairment poses obstacles to completing the SSI application process. In this article, we evaluate the Homeless with Schizophrenia Presumptive Disability (HSPD) pilot that tested whether providing support during the application process improves SSI application outcomes—such as increasing the allowance rate and shortening the time to award—in selected communities in California. Importantly, the HSPD pilot included a presumptive disability determination that provided up to 6 months of SSI payments before an award. Relative to the comparison groups chosen in the surrounding geographic areas, in an earlier period, and in the same locations, we found that the pilot intervention led to higher allowance rates at the initial adjudicative level, fewer requests for consultative examinations, and reduced time to award. ...

The allowance rate for the entire treatment group was 94 percent, ranging from 87 percent in Northern California to 97 percent in Los Angeles ...

CCD Opposes President's Gun Control Plan

     The Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), the major umbrella organization of disability-related organizations in the United States, has released a letter it sent to Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to the President, after a meeting concerning the White House plan to have the Social Security Administration relay information about some individuals who have been appointed representative payees so that they might be prevented from buying guns. CCD opposes the plan because they believe that it would stigmatize those disabled by mental illness.

     I am aghast at the CCD position. Do they have any idea how difficult it is to be approved for Social Security disability benefits due to mental illness? Maybe they just accepted without question the talking points of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA wants people to think that you get a representative payee if you're suffering from any mental illness. False. Only a small minority of those suffering from mental illness get a representative payee. The NRA wants you to think you get a representative payee if you're illiterate. False. No one at Social Security is going to even think about going to the trouble of appointing a representative payee merely because a person is illiterate. The NRA wants you to think that you get a representative payee if you're not good at math. False. It takes far more than that to get a representative payee. Those who are appointed representative payees are really, really sick people. I'd guess that most schizophrenics don't end up with a representative payee. People who end up with a representative payee are generally people who are very severely impaired by mental illness. We're talking about people who shouldn't be driving a car much less owning a firearm.

     I've got an idea, CCD. Why don't we abolish involuntary commitment? The existence of a process which can take away a person's liberty due to mental illness creates a much greater stigma than reducing access to guns. How about it, CCD? If you're not worried about paranoid schizophrenics buying guns, why should you worry about paranoid schizophrenics who threaten to kill themselves or others? Most of those who threaten to kill themselves or others won't do it. Why do we need to stigmatize them by locking them up?

What A Heartwarming Story

     At least two of Eric Conn's former clients committed suicide after being informed that their Social Security disability benefits were being cut off. Because of the suicides, Social Security agreed to keep benefits going for each individual involved until there was an Administrative Law Judge decision on their case. Even for those who committed suicide the process continued to determine whether benefits should have been cut off. Survivors can face huge overpayments if Social Security doesn't decide that benefits should have been continued. We now have word that the widow of one of those who committed suicide has received a favorable decision. Her husband's disability benefits shouldn't have been cut off. He shouldn't have been subjected to the threat of financial ruin.

Guarding The Northern Frontier

     If you are an Alaska resident and have the misfortune of becoming disabled, you'd better hope your Social Security disability claim is approved at the initial or reconsideration level, because if it's not, you probably won't be approved on appeal. Alaska has two Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), both of whom have extremely low allowance rates, around 20%. Their productivity is also low. As a result, backlogs are extremely high at the Alaska hearing office. It's so hard to win there that there are no Social Security attorneys left to represent claimants there. They could no longer make a living after these two ALJs came in. A local newspaper is reporting on the situation but don't expect anything to come of it. I have no doubt that there would be Congressional hearings if there was some other hearing office with only two ALJs who each approved 80% of the cases they heard but 20%? No problem.

NADE Newsletter

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization of the personnel who make initial and reconsideration determinations on Social Security disability claims,  has issued its Winter 2016 newsletter.

Their Only Real Interest Is Selling Insurance

     From Daniel Marans writing for the Huffington Post:

The largest seniors group in the country has launched a campaign to get presidential candidates to discuss their plans for Social Security -- only it won’t say which Social Security reforms it prefers, and progressive retirement policy leaders are none too happy about it.

 AARP, a nonprofit with 37 million members all over the age of 50, announced its “Take A Stand” initiative last November. The organization is asking presidential candidates to present their detailed plans for shoring up Social Security’s finances and ensuring that its benefits are adequate now and in the future. ...

The campaign includes a multi-million-dollar TV advertising blitz in early primary states. In one of the spots, a donkey and an elephant stand by as a phone with “Social Security” on the caller ID continues to ring.

“You can’t deal with something by ignoring it,” the narrator says. “But that’s how some candidates seem to be dealing with Social Security.” ...

[T]he campaign refrains from passing judgment on the merit of the candidates’ Social Security plans. As long as they propose ways to close the program’s long-term funding gap and maintain adequate benefits, AARP gives the candidates credit for “taking a stand.” ...

AARP’s neutrality about the substance of the candidates’ plans rankles progressive advocates, who have taken a strong stance against benefit cuts and believe that the country’s largest and most-recognized senior organization should as well. ...

A Different Route That Doesn't Involve Social Security?

     In early January the President announced that the Social Security Administration would begin a rulemaking process to allow the agency to notify, in some cases, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System about the appointment of a representative payee for a Social Security recipient. The idea is that if a person is mentally incompetent to handle money, he or she is probably not competent to buy a firearm. The first step in the rulemaking process is for an agency to send a draft proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. It was already almost too late for Social Security to finish action on a rulemaking on this subject when the President made the announcement but Social Security still hasn't sent over a proposal to OMB. If they were going to do this while Obama was still President they should be rushing but they're not. I've been wondering what's going on. Then, I see a link to this article in Modern Healthcare, of all places:

Senators on Wednesday expressed strong bipartisan support for bills that would improve the interactions of the mentally ill and the police, but clashed on how to pay for the reform and how it might affect gun ownership. ... 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) last summer introduced a bill that encourages states to share more mental health records for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.  

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he thinks Cornyn's bill, which is approved by the National Rifle Association, would make it easier, not harder, for people with severe mental illness to acquire firearms.  

“I'd like to make clear while there's broad bipartisan consensus for provisions that include how we treat mental illness, that consensus does not exist for provisions that make it easier for mentally ill individuals to get guns,” Schumer said.

Cornyn vehemently denied that. He has said his bill improves the background check system without expanding it. ... 

The mental health reform bills discussed during Wednesday's hearing aren't the only ones on the table. A bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), which does not include language on guns, is expected to move through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee soon. ... 

Cornyn has said he has talked with HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) about eventually combining the bills. But Democrats have pushed back on that suggestion, because of the provisions on gun control.

     I'm suspecting that the White House is holding off on a Social Security rulemaking in hopes that there is some legislative action on this issue.
     Honestly, does anyone, including the NRA, want to demand access to firearms for paranoid schizophrenics who have had repeated involuntary commitments because they have become a danger to themselves or others? I hope that even the NRA can't be that crazy. Ted Nugent, yes, but the entire organization?