No More CDs

     Social Security has sent out a directive that Social Security employees will no longer provide CDs of hearing files for attorneys and others representing claimants at the hearing level. The only exception of consequence is for cases that are not electronic.

     I wish the directive had said explicitly that this does not apply to prior case files. Many, perhaps most, hearing office employees are unaware that Social Security's systems do not allow electronic access to prior files. They can easily see prior files on their system but attorneys and others representing claimants cannot see prior files unless someone at the agency provides them on a CD. This is one of many annoying problems with the current system.

Sounds Legit: Beneficiaries Serving as Rep Payees Who Have Their Own Rep Payee

     I think the title of this report from Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG), Beneficiaries Serving as Representative Payees Who Have A Representative Payee, tells you the story. It's only 381 representative payees nationally who have their own representative payee, which really isn't that many considering how many representative payees there are, but it's still 381 too many.
     In fairness to Social Security, in many cases it's hard to find anyone who is able and willing to be a representative payee for an incompetent claimant.

Social Security Backs Away From Requiring Text Message ID Verification

     USA Today reports that Social Security is no longer requiring that claimants using its online systems verify their identity by copying a code from a text message they receive on their cell phone. It turns out that many people don't have cell phones or have poor cell phone reception or found the new process cumbersome.

Proposed Rules Of Conduct For Appointed Representatives

 The Social Security Administration will publish proposed Revisions to Rules of Conduct and Standards of Responsibility for Appointed Representatives in the Federal Register tomorrow. The summary provided by Social Security includes a sentence that seems to encapsulate their approach: 

The changes to our rules are not meant to suggest that any specific conduct is permissible under our existing rules; instead, we seek to ensure that our rules of conduct and standards of responsibility are clearer as a whole and directly address a broader range of inappropriate conduct

     Social Security thinks it's important to point out that there's no representative conduct that they find permissible but plenty they want to forbid because they believe it's inappropriate? That certainly suggests as attitude.

     Here's a couple of excerpts from the proposal:

A representative should not withdraw after a hearing is scheduled unless the representative can show that a withdrawal is necessary due to extraordinary circumstances , as we determine on a case-by-case basis. ...

Disclose in writing, at the time a medical or vocational opinion is submitted to us or as soon as the representative is aware of the submission to us, if: ...

• (ii) The representative referred or suggested that the claimant seek an examination from, treatment by, or the assistance of the individual providing opinion evidence.

     Why would these be a problem?
     As to the withdrawal provision, the agency insists on recognizing only individual lawyers as representing claimants, not law firms. Prohibiting the substitution of one attorney for another after a hearing is scheduled makes it difficult for a law firm to properly allocate its resources and makes it easy for individual attorneys employed by a firm to pick up and leave their firm with the files of their clients after the firm has spent large sums of money on the cases over the many months or years that the firm has represented the claimants. I don't know what the point of this is other than to harass law firms. Let me anticipate the response from a government employee. "Law firms don't spend much money on Social Security cases -- only a few dollars obtaining medical records -- so that's no big deal." Anyone who thinks this has never run a law firm. Law firms spend almost all of their money on salaries and other overhead. The problem is that a law firm may spend thousands of dollars on the office overhead associated with a case only to see an attorney waltz away at the last minute pocketing the entire fee. Is it unreasonable for a law firm to try to make this difficult? What exactly is the problem with a law firm substituting one attorney for another after a hearing is scheduled? It doesn't delay anything.
     As to the requirement that attorneys notify Social Security if they suggest medical treatment, if I tell my client that he or she ought to get in psychiatric treatment, I'm supposed to disclose this to Social Security if the psychiatrist later offers an opinion? What if I tell my client to get back to the doctor he or she used to see? Am I supposed to carefully track the advice I give clients about medical treatment?
     This is just overkill. I'm not Eric Conn or Charlie Binder. Don't treat me like them. I don't deserve it.
     This is merely a proposal. The public can comment upon it. Social Security is supposed to consider those comments. A new administration and a new Commissioner will be in office before anything is adopted, if it ever is.

Happy 81st Birthday, Social Security!

The Living Dead

     Even the New England Journal of Medicine is reporting on the problems of Social Security's Death Master File.

Can You Figure Out This Photo?

     Your question is: What's going on here and how does this relate to a Social Security disability claim?

Hints: This has nothing to do with swelling or manual dexterity.

     And the answer is that this unfortunate 20 year old man had just been released from a psychiatric hospital. His regular shoelaces had been taken from him as a suicide prevention measure. He's had many psychiatric hospitalizations because his schizoaffective disorder causes command auditory hallucinations. Yet, Social Security twice denied his disability claim and he had to go to a hearing. Can anyone explain why Social Security denies disability claims like this?

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.