Five Common Myths Debunked

     Finally, something from the Motley Fool on Social Security that's worth reading. Matthew Frankel debunks five common myths about Social Security. My only bone of contention is that I wouldn't call these myths so much as I would call them right wing lies.

Minnesota Man Arrested For Making Threats At Social Security Office

     From AJC.com, whatever that is -- Atlanta Journal Constitution?

A Minnesota man was arrested Wednesday after threatening employees at a Social Security office ...

According to Capt. John Sherwin of the Rochester Police Department, Leonard Booth, 26, walked into the Social Security office at 10:15 a.m. and complained that he was unable to receive benefits. Booth began “acting erratically” and threatened employees with bodily harm, Sherwin told KAAL. ...

Bad Advice

     From Philip Moeller, writing for PBS:

William: I took Social Security benefits early in 2014 when I was 62. At the time, my daughter was 15, but Social Security did not ask me if I had a minor child. I did not realize she was eligible until I read an article. I called Social Security, and they said our family was only eligible for six months of retroactive benefits and not the 36 months I think we should receive. I was wondering if you knew how I could get help in getting these back benefits?

Phil Moeller: I would like to tell you that you can get all the past benefits you feel you deserve. Unfortunately, Social Security is not legally responsible for telling you about its rules and benefits. The burden is on you to know these rules as impossible as this may be.

You can file an online appeal, but citing the agency’s failure to tell you about benefits for your daughter is unlikely to be a compelling reason for the agency to change its decision. Having said this, I urge you and anyone else in this situation to appeal, to complain and to copy the offices of their elected representative in Washington.

What good is providing benefits if no one knows about them!

     Well, actually, William was asked. See question 17 on the retirement claim form. The same question is asked when you file online. If he listed the children and Social Security didn't follow up to take their claims, they're eligible for the back benefits. If he didn't list the children, I don't think he can blame anyone but himself.
     This is an issue I have some familiarity with since a few fathers applying for Social Security disability benefits fail to list their children. Sometimes it's a mistake; mostly it's because the fathers mistakenly think their own benefits will be reduced if the children are also paid on the account.

Some Changes Coming On Wage Reporting

     From Emergency Message EM-17021 issued yesterday:

A. Purpose

This emergency message (EM) encourages technicians to immediately begin keying the Employer Identification Number (EIN) [the EIN is the equivalent of a Social Security Number for corporations] in the Modernized Supplemental Security Income Claims System (MSSICS) and eWork when processing wages and work reports. This process is in preparation for the implementation of two provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), which will reduce processing time for wage reports. 

B. BBA Background 

The BBA implemented several changes to improve efficiency in processing wage reports for Title XVI and Title II. 

Section 824 (Payroll Data Exchange) 

Grants Social Security Administration (SSA) the authority to create an information exchange with payroll data providers in order to collect wage and employment information. The information exchange allows SSA to receive wages electronically on a monthly basis for individuals who have given authorization and whose employers participate with the payroll data providers.
Section 826 (Electronic Reporting of Earnings) 

Mandates that SSA implement a system that would permit Title II Disability beneficiaries to report their earnings via electronic means similar to what is available to Title XVI recipients. To comply, SSA is developing an online application platform behind mySSA for users to report both Title II and Title XVI wages. This is a phased release. Title II will be the initial release and Title XVI will follow in a later release.

Pushback On New Rule

Cheryl Sawyer, working with her physical therapist

     From the Daily Hampshire Gazette:

She had been struggling to keep a job for months.

Southampton resident Cheryl Sawyer had a degree from a two-year college and about 10 years of experience climbing the ranks of retail. She had worked consistently throughout her adult life, priding herself on never being dependent on anyone else.

But then, in 2013, pain began to take over her life, pain that would eventually be diagnosed as multiple sclerosis.

Sawyer couldn’t stand for long. She couldn’t lift. She couldn’t bend. Soon, she began having muscle spasms. After being let go from a job for the fourth time, she decided to apply for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits.

“I always enjoyed working, and I felt like I was contributing,” Sawyer said. “I felt like I was doing something. Now I’m trapped.”

 Like millions of other people in the United States, Sawyer waded through the Social Security disability application process ...

Most applicants for SSDI are denied, and the few who are approved wait on average 18 months to receive benefits after they apply for them.

And that was before a major rule change took effect in March in the way Social Security disability claims are processed ...

The change lets administrator law judges weigh evidence in an applicant’s file however they see fit, instead of being forced to give the most weight to the opinion of an applicant’s doctor. ...

The SSA states on its website that one reason for the change giving judges more leeway in their rulings is a belief that it is inappropriate for adjudicators to be forced to take a certain medical opinion as true. ...

Critics of the new rule say a judge can now give more weight to other evidence in an application, including the opinions of doctors or consultants connected to SSA who meet an applicant once or sometimes never at all. In addition, as part of the rule change, judges no longer have to tell applicants how they weighed evidence when making their decision....

      In the last couple of years, it seemed like Social Security tried to publish any anti-claimant regulation that had floated around the agency in recent years. This one almost certainly dates back to the time that Michael Astrue was Commissioner. There were good reasons it hadn't been published before. I'd be willing to bet that some folks at Social Security warned that this one would backfire, turning a minor problem into a huge one. Just think about it. The federal courts interpret the Social Security Act in a certain way. The agency doesn't like this interpretation. Social Security doesn't try to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Instead, the agency tries to overrule the federal courts by adopting new regulations. How do you think that looks to a federal court? How likely is it that a federal court will meekly accept being overruled by an agency? If you say that of course they will, you aren't even trying to understand how federal judges think. My opinion is that this new rule was peak arrogance by Social Security and we know what often follows arrogance.

Settlement Concerning One Consultative Physician

     Social Security has settled a class action lawsuit concerning the agency's usage of Dr. Frank Chen to do consultative medical examinations in disability claims. Chen was alleged to have supplied Social Security with "grossly deficient reports [that] were based on cursory examinations (often lasting ten minutes or less), referenced tests that were never performed, and were inconsistent with plaintiffs’ medical records." The agency kept using Chen despite knowing of problems with his examinations and twice warning him. Many of those who were denied disability benefits after being examined by Dr. Chen will now get redeterminations.

I'm Expecting To See Lots Of Remands On This Issue

     The Department of Veterans Affairs found a vet disabled. Social Security doesn't think they need to give any explanation why they disagreed and found him not disabled. In fact, to my ears, they sound a bit arrogant about it.  This may sound reasonable to some at Social Security. Those of us who represent claimants think the agency has picked a fight it probably won't win in federal court. If you think it's clear that the agency will win on this issue, I'd suggest you take a step back and try to look at this from the perspective of a federal judge. And saying that federal judges just don't understand Social Security doesn't get you anywhere.

     By the way, yes, I know, this guy probably got some bad advice. Overestimating the strength of one's hand can be a problem for both sides.

Long Lines In San Antonio

From a San Antonio television station: 

A closed Social Security office in San Antonio is causing long lines throughout the area. 

"We were here for about 2 hours, maybe a little bit more than that,” said Ruby Toombes a Social Security visitor. 

“We currently have three offices in San Antonio and we looked at two different waiting times: wait times for persons who come in for an appointment and wait times for persons who do not have an appointment,” said Veronica Taylor a spokesperson for Social Security. “The average wait time of the offices for persons who have an appointment is 10 minutes. The average wait time of the offices for persons who do not have an appointment is 41.” 

According to local residents at the location along Isom Road, one visit can take several hours. ...