Saul Nomination Hearing Starts At 10:30 Today

     The Senate Finance Committee nomination hearing for Andrew Saul to become Commissioner of Social Security begins at 10:30 today. You can watch online.

     There may be fireworks. Social Security Works has put out a press release strongly opposing the nomination.

     Social Security Commissioners have fixed six year terms. The nomination being considered today is only for a term ending in a little more than three months. Why bother confirming him? The Social Security Act says that once confirmed a Commissioner can stay in office after his or her term has ended until a successor is confirmed. Confirm Saul now and he can stay in office as long as President Trump stays in office. Perhaps they'll try later to confirm him for the full six year term beginning in January 2019. Perhaps not.

Three New Rulings

     The Social Security Administration will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow three new Social Security Rulings. On cursory examination, Social Security Rulings 18-01p Determining the Established Onset Date (EOD) in Disability Claims and 18-02p Determining the Established Onset Date (EOD) in Blindness Claims are of little consequence. 

     The third may matter a little although it is an issue that rarely arises. From Social Security Ruling 18-3p, Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment:

... We will not determine whether the individual failed to follow prescribed treatment if the treatment was prescribed only by a consultative examiner (CE), medical consultant (MC), psychological consultant (PC), medical expert (ME), or by a medical source during an evaluation conducted solely to determine eligibility to any State or Federal benefit. ...

Prescribed treatment does not include lifestyle modifications, such as dieting, exercise, or smoking cessation. ...

The following are examples of acceptable good cause reasons for not following prescribed treatment: ...

The individual’s fear of surgery is so intense that it is a contraindication to having the surgery. We require a written statement from an individual’s own medical source affirming that the individual’s intense fear of surgery is in fact a contraindication to having the surgery. We will not consider an individual’s refusal of surgery as good cause for failing to follow prescribed treatment if it is based on the individual’s assertion that success is not guaranteed or that the individual knows of someone else for whom the treatment was not successful. ...

     I don't see the point of asking  a medical source to give information about their patient's fear about having surgery. Wouldn't it make more sense to rely directly upon the patient's own testimony about those fears? Isn't this an inherently subjective matter? Why rely upon statements from a physician who regards their patient's objections as ridiculous? This seems like it's searching for a way to hurt fearful people.

Report On Last Week’s IT Hearing

     Federal News Radio reports on last week’s hearing before the House Social Security Subcommittee on the agency’s software issues, particularly the Disability Case Processing System (DCPS) it’s developing. I hope it’s starting to work. 

     If they ever get this taken care of, it’s past time to once again tackle the Windfall Offset problem. That ought to be easier but in past decades the agency invested huge sums of money in developing software to automate the calculations without achieving any success.  If you work at a hearing office you wouldn’t know but I assure you, this is a very big deal. Way too many man hours are spent on something that computer systems ought to handle in a flash.

Agency Argument On Lucia

     For what it's worth, here's the argument that Social Security filed in one case pending in District Court on a Lucia issue. They're probably filing something like this in every case.

     The really powerful argument going against them is that Social Security had announced that they were refusing to consider any Lucia arguments administratively. Why require a claimant to make an argument that wouldn't have been considered anyway?

     Click on each page to view full size.

If This Is Allsup, No Wonder They've Been In Trouble

     One prominent non-attorney group representing Social Security claimants allowed researchers to peek at some of its data. The group isn't identified but I'll guess it was Allsup. Below are some numbers from the study that resulted. Click on each image to view full size.

     I'll speak here mostly to others who represent Social Security claimants since Social Security employees may find what I'm about to say mystifying or boring.
      Note that the company won only 62.6% of the time when they represented (or arranged representation) for claimants at hearings even though 77.5% of their clients came from Long Term Disability (LTD) insurance companies or self insured employers. LTD cases are gold plated. You should win a very high percentage of them. The reported success rate is very unimpressive. If this is Allsup, no wonder they've had problems.These LTD carriers ought to look at other options.
     This study also demonstrated the big problem with internet advertising -- low yield. This company reports that 55.6% of its potential clients came from "Internet/PR" but only 5.2% of their actual clients came from "Internet/PR." (By the way, the use of the term "PR" suggests this is Allsup since Allsup engages in heavy PR.)  That's a very low yield. From my somewhat limited experience with internet advertising, that's a low yield even for internet advertising.

Off Topic: Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing: What Do You Think?

     What do you think about the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing? Who do you believe? Should he be confirmed?

Rush To Judgment

     From the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader:

The Social Security Administration was slow to halt corruption within its own ranks, but has been eager to penalize Kentuckians who were victimized by their crooked, now-imprisoned lawyer, Eric Conn, and the Social Security judge who pocketed Conn’s bribes.

A new round of redetermination hearings has begun for almost 2,000 former Conn clients. The SSA should delay the hearings until the outcome of two things are known:

▪ The discovery earlier this year of thousands of records at Conn’s office that might help clients prove they were disabled when they were approved for benefits — if only they could gain access to their files.

▪ An appeal to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that could entitle almost 800 people to a reconsideration of their benefits terminations. That ruling could guide how the SSA handles Conn clients’ cases in the future.

The Kentucky Bar Association, whose actions during the Conn saga are almost as puzzling as those of the SSA, continues to disappoint. First the KBA was slow to discipline Conn and protect the public from his unethical conduct. More recently, the KBA refused to help get the files from his closed law office into clients’ hands.

The KBA has a procedure for distributing records to clients after an attorney dies or is disbarred. The U.S. Justice Department asked the KBA to activate that process and take control of the 6,000 to 8,000 files at Conn’s office in Floyd County.

The KBA refused.

Then, because of what the Justice Department described as the KBA’s “complete abdication of responsibility,” a federal prosecutor asked U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves to appoint a receiver to take charge of the records. The Justice Department recommended former state Supreme Court justice Janet Stumbo for the task.

But because Stumbo is married to attorney Ned Pillersdorf, who has been the leading advocate for Conn’s clients, Reeves instead ordered the government to submit the names of at least three potential receivers. Reeves scheduled an Oct. 10 hearing. ...

Reamore here: https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article219030325.html#storylink=c

Read more here: https://www.kentuc/opinion/editorials/article219030325.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article219030325.html#storylink

Hearing On Saul Nomination

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing for October 2, 2018 on the nomination of Andrew Saul to become Commissioner of Social Security. However, this is only for the term ending January 19, 2019. 

     What bother to confirm him for a term that ends so soon? The reason that comes to mind is that they don't think he can be confirmed for a full term if Democrats win a majority in the Senate in the November election. They want to get him in the job so that he can hold over as Acting Commissioner.