Lawsuit On Student Loan Collection Practices

     From Market Watch:

For about a year, Hector Rodriguez lost a portion of his limited income, including in some months, a portion of his much-needed Social Security disability benefits over a student loan that was eligible for forgiveness.

Rodriguez, an army veteran, took out student loans in the 1970s to attend college, but he ultimately had to drop out due to frequent hospitalizations and later defaulted on the debt, according to a lawsuit he filed against multiple government agencies earlier this month. In 1973, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He began receiving Social Security disability benefits shortly thereafter and has received them continuously ever since.

Rodriguez’s disability was so severe that he qualified to have his student loans wiped away through what’s known as a total and permanent disability discharge (TPD). And yet, in 2013, he received a notice from the government indicating that the feds planned to garnish a portion of his disability benefits to pay off his student loan, according to his lawsuit. The notice never indicated that a disability discharge might be a possibility and when he spoke to the government-hired debt collector responsible for his loan he or she never provided that information even though he informed them that he was disabled, he claims.

Shortly thereafter, the government began taking $177 out of his $1,184 disability check. ...

But the Department of Education is working to make it easier for borrowers who qualify for a disability discharge to receive it. Earlier this year, the agency cross-referenced its records with those of the Social Security administration and identified nearly 400,000 borrowers who qualified for a discharge — about 100,000 of which were at risk of losing their tax refunds or Social Security benefits over the debt — and sent them a letter inviting them to apply for one. The agency also began suspending disability benefit offsets in cases where it’s clear the borrower has a medical condition that won't improve, according to the recent GAO report....

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 a Special Edition of its newsletter.

Happy New Year

Social Security Employee Pleads Guilty

     From the Times of San Diego:

A Social Security Administration employee who accepted payments and had the authority to waive money owed to the government by overpaid beneficiaries pleaded guilty Thursday to stealing money orders and depositing them into his own checking account.

Josue Edgardo Castro, of San Ysidro, faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when he is sentenced April 3 in U.S. District Court in San Diego.

Castro admitted that on at least 21 occasions, he accepted money orders meant for the Social Security Administration, smuggled them out of the office, and deposited them in his personal bank account.

In addition, Castro admitted that on at least nine separate occasions, he waived outstanding balances that were due to Social Security from overpaid beneficiaries in order to conceal that he had stolen their attempted repayments.
In all, Castro admitted stealing more than $5,700 in money orders and costing the Social Security Administration more than $9,000 due to the overpayment waivers he entered to hide his crimes. ...

Man Arrested For Bringing Pistol Into Social Security Office

     A man was arrested yesterday after bringing a pistol into the Social Security field office in Mobile, AL.

Are ALJs Unconstitutional?

     A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has held in Bandimere v. SEC that Administrative Law Judges are unconstitutional because they are not appointed by the President. The Social Security Administration employs most federal ALJs. This decision may receive en banc review, that is by the entire 10th Circuit instead of just a three judge panel. If en banc review is denied or if there is the same result after en banc review, the case is certainly headed to Supreme Court review.

Why Medicare And Not Social Security?

     From 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(d)(1)(A), having to do with Medicare appeals:

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an administrative law judge shall conduct and conclude a hearing on a decision of a qualified independent contractor under subsection (c) of this section and render a decision on such hearing by not later than the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date a request for hearing has been timely filed.

     You might ask why there is a time limit on Medicare appeals and no time limit on Social Security appeals, most of which linger for well over a year. The answer is simple. The Medicare appeals are filed by medical providers. They have political clout. Social Security claimants don't. In fairness, the medical providers have had trouble enforcing the section of statute I've quoted above but they're just gotten a decision indicating that the courts may be willing to enforce the time limit language.

The Human Costs

Donna Dye, a former client of Eric Conn

     The Associated Press is reporting on the human costs of Social Security's big effort to cut off the disability benefits of Eric Conn's former clients. All along it's seemed that the hundreds of people involved were no more than ciphers to those who were so eager to label them as frauds, cut off their benefits and stack the deck against them. The question I've had all along has been why is Social Security going to such lengths to hurt these people when the agency admits they did nothing wrong. It's perfectly obvious at ground level that these folks are sick and most would have won without any of Eric Conn's alleged shenanigans.