Senate Finance Committee To Vote On Eanes Nomination

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a vote for March 2 on the nomination of Andrew Lamont Eanes to become Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. Barring any last minute problem, Eanes is likely to be confirmed by the Senate in the near future.

     If confirmed, Eanes will immediately replace Carolyn Colvin as Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Let me explain why that is. Social Security's Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner do not serve at the pleasure of the President. They serve set six year terms. Colvin's term as Deputy Commissioner ended about three years ago if I remember correctly. She has stayed in office only because the statute allows a Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to stay in office until a successor is confirmed. The last Commissioner of Social Security, Michael Astrue, resigned some time ago. If Eanes is confirmed, Colvin is immediately out of a job. Eanes will immediately succeed her as Acting Commissioner. There is no pending nomination for Commissioner. Colvin had been nominated in the last Congress but President Obama did not re-nominate her after the 2014 Congressional election.

Rudolph Patterson 1939-2016

     I regret to report that Rudolph Patterson of Macon, Georgia, who was one of the founders of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR), has passed away. Rudolph was an invaluable part of NOSSCR for three decades. He trained thousands of attorneys in Social Security law and remained an inspiration to many.

     I first met Rudolph at the first NOSSCR Conference, help in New Orleans in the fall of 1979. I remember being disappointed that I got into town too late to take Rudolph up on his offer of dinner at Antoine's. I think he invited all the attendees to dinner. Rupolph was always generous with his time and his considerable expertise. He certainly helped me greatly.

     Rudolph was NOSSCR's Atticus Finch, the role model to which we all aspired and should still aspire.

Off Topic: Clarence Thomas Asks A Question

     For the first time in more than a decade, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question from the bench during oral arguments! Actually, he asked several questions in a five minute exchange concerning gun rights.

If You Really Think They Can Work, Why Don't You Hire Them?

     The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) has proposed that federal agencies do a better job of hiring individuals with what they refer to as "disabilities", which I would call medical impairments. The EEOC wants to increase the goal for federal agencies from 7% of the workforce to 12% of the workforce having a "disability."  

     Claimants for Social Security disability benefits are usually incredulous when told that Social Security believes there is some work they can still do. They often ask the question "If Social Security thinks I can work, why don't they give me a job?" I'd like to see Social Security offering jobs to some of the people whose disability claims they turn down despite the fact that the claimants are in and out of psychiatric hospitals. Plenty of them have a history of doing office work. Some are former government employees. If you really think they can work why don't you hire them? You can't hire them all but you can hire some.

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.