Newsflash: There's No Free Lunch

     Social Security's Office of Chief Actuary recently completed a set of estimates on the effects of a wide range of proposals concerning Social Security disability benefits. Here are some estimates that may surprise you:

• Implementing any type of benefit offset scheme would cost money, not save money;
• Changes to the grid regulations would have only a minor effect;
• Changes to evidence submission rules would have a negligible effect;
• Eliminating reconsideration would cost money although not that much
• A change to suspend benefits or offset benefits due to the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits would have a negligible effect;
• Any changes in program integrity would have almost no effect.

     If you want to have a significant effect on the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, you either have to make it much more difficult to get on benefits or reduce benefit payments or raise taxes. You're not going to accomplish much without making a lot of people mad.

Eric Conn Arrested

     From WSAZ:

Disability attorney Eric Conn, who has faced accusations of colluding with a judge to rig Social Security cases, is in custody Monday night in the Pike County Detention Center, according to the jail’s website. 

Conn is being held for U.S. Marshals, the jail reports. 

He was booked at 7:15 p.m. Monday. No bond has been set. 

The charges against Conn are conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, conspiracy to retaliate against a witness, destruction of records in a federal investigation, false statements, transactional money laundering, and conspiracy to structure currency transactions.

     Update: Here's a link to the indictment. David Daugherty and Alfred Adkins were also indicted.It's alleged that Conn was giving former ALJ Daugherty $9,000 to $9,500 per month in cash. If that's accurate, both Conn and Daugherty were amazingly stupid but if that's what they did, I don't understand why it took so long to indict.

It's Like Pregnancy

     There have been many complaints about long delays in releasing fees to attorneys who represent Social Security claimants. These fees are withheld from the back benefits of the claimants involved. The Social Security Administration receives a user fee for their costs in withholding and paying these fees. I hear that in a recent telephone call with Social Security management about the problem the National Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives (NOSSCR) was told that the agency didn't even consider a fee payment to be delayed unless the delay was more than nine months!

     If you were deliberately trying to drive attorneys out of the practice of Social Security law, this would be a good way to do it.

Lies, Damn Lies And Zombie Lies

      Neil Buchanan explores two important question: Why do Republicans keep lying about Social Security and why does mainstream media keep repeating those lies? Paul Krugman calls them "zombie lies" because you just can't kill them.

Social Security Headcount Holds Steady

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated figures for the number of employees at the Social Security Administration as of the end of calendar year 2015:

• December 2015 65,518
• September 2015 65,717
• June 2015 65,666
• March 2015 64,432
• December 2014 65,430
• September 2014 64,684
• June 2014 62,651
• March 2014 60,820
• December 2013 61,957
• September 2013 62,543
• June 2013 62,877
• March 2013 63,777
• December 2012 64,538
• September 2012 65,113
• September 2011 67,136
• December 2010 70,270
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990

The Real Social Security Disability Fraud?

     Steve Berenson of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law has written for the DePaul Journal for Social Justice about what he considers The Real Social Security Disability Fraud(s).

Treasury Deliberately Delaying Payment Of Social Security Benefits

     Here's a note that a legal assistant at my firm made of a conversation she had with Social Security's Representative Call Center (RCC) in Baltimore about why one of the firm's clients hadn't been paid her back benefits:

TC [Telephone all] RCC (877) 626-6363. It [the client's money] was released to the Treasury Dept. on the 23rd and she said every month the Treasury has a date that they stop processing cks until the 1st of the next month; this month it was 18th. So all the claims they processed will not be released until April 1st.  She said this has been going on for some time and the cut off is usually in the 20s of the month but for some reason this month it was earlier.

     Oddly, one person posted a comment on this blog yesterday saying that they had heard the same thing.
     Let me explain one thing. The Social Security Administration doesn't write checks or initiate direct deposits of Social Security benefits. That's done by the Department of the Treasury. All Social Security does is certify to Treasury that the payments should be made.
     I had long suspected that Treasury was deliberately delaying payments at the end of each month.  Generally, neither my firm nor our clients get paid Title II Social Security benefits in about the last week of each month, then there's a surge in payments early in each month as the money that was held up at the end of the preceding month is released. Payments under Title XVI, Supplemental Security Income, don't seem to be affected. It's only Title II benefits that are affected. What I don't understand is why Treasury is doing this. It seems inappropriate to me.

You Do Know We Can Read This, Don't You?

     From an newly amended section of HALLEX, Social Security's manual for hearings and appeals:

When determining disability, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will use each of the age categories applicable to a claimant during the period for which SSA is determining whether the claimant is disabled. SSA will not apply the age categories mechanically in a borderline age situation. If a claimant is within a few days to a few months of reaching an older age category (hereinafter “higher age category”), and using the higher age category would result in a determination or decision that the claimant is disabled, SSA will consider whether to use the higher age category after evaluating the overall impact of all the factors of the case. ...

If the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision is supported by substantial evidence, including the findings regarding the existence of a borderline age situation and whether to apply a higher age category, and there is no other basis for granting review present, the Appeals Council (AC) will deny review.

When denying review is appropriate but the ALJ did not expressly state in the decision that he or she considered a borderline age situation and whether to apply a higher age category, the AC will add the following language to the “What We Considered” section in the denial notice:

We considered the borderline age situation in this case, and we found that the factors in the record do not support application of the higher age category.

     The first paragraph is standard Social Security policy. There's nothing objectionable about it. The rest is apparently based upon the theory that the only thing that matters isn't what you actually did; it's what you said you did. How can the Appeals Council say that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) "considered" an issue when the ALJ said nothing about the issue? How can the Appeals Council say that it "considered" an issue when it tells the world upfront that it isn't really going to "consider" the issue; it's just going to say it "considered" the issue.
     This newly amended section is about checking off boxes. You couldn't have a clearer statement of the agency's cookie cutter approach to justice.
     The ironic thing is that the language quoted above will be cited to the courts as evidence that Social Security's "considered" language is a lie. More cases will be remanded, not fewer.