Whistleblower Or Just Out Of Control?

     Take a look at Daniels v. Merit Systems Protection Board (9th Cir. August 9, 2016). Daniels is a Social Security employee who claims to have been a whistleblower. You can call him what you want.  I'd call him an out of bounds, out of control Social Security employee who deserves worse punishment than he got. It worries me that someone like this rose to a position like Hearing Office Director or Supervisory Attorney Advisor. His exact title was unclear to the Court.

Attorneys Needed For Fee-Generating Cases

     I'm reposting this since the original post contained an incorrect e-mail address, which I've now corrected:


     Most claimants caught up in the Eric Conn mess in Kentucky and West Virginia have received decisions from Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). About half have won. The Appeals Council is fast-tracking appeals from those who were denied. There are many claimants now in need of representation in federal court. There will be several hundred of these cases.
     Let me address some concerns that attorneys might have about taking on these cases:

• These are fee-generating cases. Once the ALJ denies the claim, the interim benefits stop. There's also the possibility of fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
• There are attorneys available to serve as local counsel.
• Social Security is not suggesting that any of these claimants participated in Eric Conn's questionable behavior. They've done nothing wrong. Taking on one of these cases doesn't involve an attorney in a complicated criminal matter.
• There's nothing odd about these disability claims. Like other Social Security disability claims some are stronger than others but they're not phony.
• There are good arguments that can and should be made on the merits of individual cases.
• There are strong arguments that can be made concerning Social Security's methods. Social Security is simply assuming that there is fraud or similar fault in each of these cases. The claimant cannot see the evidence upon which this determination was made. They were not allowed to contest the determination of fraud or similar fault. ALJs were forbidden to consider this issue. The claimants were compelled to prove all over again that they were disabled. Important medical evidence was excluded from consideration and the claimant could not contest this. The process is completely different than what Social Security has done in the past in cases involving allegations of fraud or similar fault. For that matter, it's completely different from what Social Security is doing right now in other cases. 
• Claimants were not allowed to prove that they became disabled at a date later than the prior ALJ decision approving their claim except through a new claim. Most of the claimants caught up in this became sicker as time went on. I've looked at the statute involved and I can't even figure out what argument that Social Security can make on this issue.
• This is going to be a mess for the District Court in Kentucky where most of these cases will be heard. They're going to be deluged with hundreds of these cases. Are those District Court judges really prepared to slog through these cases, one by one? They're going to be strongly tempted to find a way to get these cases off the docket quickly. The easiest way to do that is to remand. How can I predict this? I was around for the huge wave of terminations in the early 1980s. That's what happened then.

     If you're interested in getting involved in these fee-generating cases in federal court, contact Mary Going at Appalachian Research and Defense Fund (AppalRed) at maryg[@]ardfky.org. Of course, there aren't any brackets in her real e-mail address. I just put them in there so she doesn't get so much spam.

"I'm Sore Now And All Cramped Up"

     From WWLP:

People visiting the U.S. Social Security Administration Office in Holyoke [MA], Tuesday, found themselves in extremely long lines and waiting a long time.

Several people told 22News they waited at least two hours before being seen. One man said he waited nearly 7 hours before he was able to file a claim.

“I have no idea, it was just aggravating. I mean, it was tiring on my back. I’m sore now and all cramped up. It’s been a long slow process,” said Charles Daviau of Easthampton.

Daviau added that he went the whole day without eating because he was afraid, if he left, he would lose his spot.

     The appropriations bills pending in Congress would make all of Social Security's backlogs and service delivery problems much worse. 

Tough Times Ahead Under GOP Budget

     From Joe Davidson's column in the Washington Post:

Social Security is facing dark times —  not just figuratively, but as in the lights would go out.

That’s the warning from Social Security Administration (SSA) officials if an appropriations bill pushed by House Republicans takes effect.

“There would be up to two weeks of furloughs for all employees,” the agency said in information obtained by The Washington Post. “During this time, our offices would be closed to the public.  Additionally, a full hiring freeze would cause service degradation and long wait times and delays. ..."

It’s not like Social Security is operating in the flush now. Since 2010, its operating budget has shrunk 10 percent after inflation while the number of beneficiaries rose by 12 percent. ...

More than 1.1 million people are waiting for a disability hearing. That means they have to wait more than 500 days, on average, to get a decision on their appeals. SSA has closed more than 60 field offices and 500 mobile offices since 2010. Last year, waits of three weeks for an appointment were common. Callers to the 800 number have to wait 13 minutes on average, if they get through at all. ...

Temporary ALJs?

     I understand that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency that oversees the process by which federal Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are appointed, has asked federal agencies to comment on a proposal for appointing some ALJs on a term limited basis of one to four years. This is supposed to help with workload surges.

     Social Security has long complained that OPM doesn't give it enough names to pick from when they're hiring ALJs. This proposal wouldn't do anything about that problem unless OPM changes the process by which they create the register of people from which agencies can select ALJs. If you do something about the hiring process, I don't see why you need temporary ALJs. Of course, the motivation behind this may have less to do with filling vacancies than with finding a way to force ALJs to toe the agency line. It fits in with the plan to have Appeals Council judges hold hearings. By the way, does anyone know when they plan to start that?

Bad Smell In Atlanta

     From WXIA:

A group of Atlanta attorneys and federal judges are questioning the motive of moving a Social Security hearing office from north Atlanta to a wealthy suburb. ...
There are two hearing offices in Atlanta where the disabled must go for a judge to approval Social Security benefits, downtown at the Sam Nunn Federal Building and 3105 Clairmont Road.

Earlier this year, the agency secretly starting relocating the Clairmont Road location to Alpharetta, 25 miles away. It’s scheduled to open in January. The new location, 4100 Old Milton Parkway, happens to be conveniently located about five miles from Judge Ollie Garmon’s Alpharetta home. He is one of the highest ranking social security judges in the country.

Garmon currently works out of the Sam Nunn Federal Building in downtown Atlanta. According to blueprints and sources familiar with the move, the agency plans to build Garmon an office inside the future Alpharetta social security hearing office. This will cut his commute nearly an hour during rush-hour.

The move was so secret, the agency didn’t even notify its own judges. In May, the Association of Administrative Law Judges filed a grievance with Social Security to block the move.

“No judges were notified about this move to my knowledge. I’m unsure if any employees were notified about this move until after the lease had been signed,” said Carol Moore, a vice president with the Association of Administrative Law Judges. Moore is also an administrative law judge in Macon. ... 

Numerous Atlanta-area attorneys, who represent clients seeking disability benefits, say the move makes no sense. They don’t think the relocation close to Garmon’s home is a coincidence either.

“I don’t know, but it kind of smells like it wasn’t,” said Robbie Weaver, an attorney out of Blairsville. ...

Atlanta attorney John Hogan said, “[It’s] an inconvenient location without any benefit.” ...

“As I’ve said before. I cannot answer questions. I’ll be happy to do that at the proper time,” Garmon said.

A spokesperson for Social Security explained in an email that, ”the new location is centrally located to better serve the public,” it will have an “additional restroom” and “more parking.”

“If you put a dot on the map and drew a circle, that could be the case, but the reality is, without access to the bus station, it’s a false perception,” said Hogan. ...

To determine how the move will impact disability claiments who rely on public transportation, the 11Alive Investigators took public transit to both the current and the future site from downtown Atlanta. ...

From downtown to proposed Alpharetta hearing office: it took two trains, a bus and required more than a one mile walk. ...

Well, It's An Idea

     Social Security's latest idea for dealing with its shortage of field office staff is to try to persuade vets to work for free.

Same Sex Marriage Case?

     Social Security isn't done with same sex marriage issues. Some cases dealing with exactly when a marriage is recognized to have existed are still working their way through the system. I'm not sure about this case, however. The bigger problem here may have to do with how long the two were married before one of them died, a problem which has nothing to do with this being a same sex marriage, other than that they might have gotten married earlier but the law didn't allow it. Marriages have to last at least nine months for a person to be considered a widow or widower unless the death was unexpected and the death was very much expected in this case.