Conn's Files Transferred To Receiver

     From WYMT:

In April we were told about thousands of medical files belonging to the former clients of Eric C. Conn found inside his Floyd County law complex in Stanville.

In August U.S. Marshals seized the law complex, locking the doors and boarding up the windows, until a receiver of the files could be appointed. That receiver, appointed two weeks ago, will have the task of reviewing all the files and making sure they get into their owners' hands.

"I have had some difficult discussions with the receiver," said Prestonsburg Attorney Ned Pillersdorf who represents many former Conn clients. "And in my view, he does not understand the urgency of getting these people their files in my opinion yesterday."

Nearly 2,000 former clients of Erc C. Conn have been going through redetermination hearings trying to get back their Social Security benefits. However, many of them are appearing for those hearings without the medical files necessary to prove their disability. 

According to Pillersdorf, the clients will not start seeing their files until December, and that could be too late.

"By that time hundreds of hearings will have gone on. And in my view, no question that truly disabled people will lose their benefits because they did not have access to their files which contains important information."

Pillersdorf says many of those former clients do not realize just how important those files really are.

"There is a misunderstanding of what these hearings are about. They are not about whether these people are disabled today. The hearings are about whether they were disabled in 2007 and 2008, explained Pillersdorf. "Those client files, that the clients still don't have access to, were generated in 07 and 08 and would be very relevant." ...

     Many of these claimants say that they obtained their own medical records and gave them to Conn's office. However, he never submitted anything other than reports from physicians and psychologists on his payroll. Anything a claimant gave his office is probably still in his old files. Obtaining these records from the medical sources ten years later can be difficult or impossible. Claimants can't even remember which doctors they saw back then. Some of the medical practices where they were seen have closed. A few medical practices which are still open have discarded older medical records.
     What is particularly bothersome is that Administrative Law Judges hearing these cases are all refusing to wait until Conn's files become available to the claimants. We have seen no instructions that they should not wait but none is willing to wait. How did they all decide to do the same thing if they weren't told that is what they are supposed to do? If they were told off the record to act in this way, isn't that an inappropriate ex parte communication?

Social Security To Propose Mandatory Video Hearings

     The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved publication of proposed new Social Security regulations on Setting the Manner for the Appearance of Parties and Witnesses at a Hearing. Here is Social Security's summary of the proposal before it was submitted:

We propose to revise and unify some of the rules that govern how, where, and when individuals appear for hearings before an administrative law judge at the hearings level and before a disability hearing officer at the reconsideration level of our administrative review process. At both levels, when we schedule a hearing, we propose that we will determine the manner in which the parties to the hearing will appear: by VTC [Video Teleconference], in person, or, under limited circumstances, by telephone. We would not permit individuals to opt out of appearing by VTC. We also propose that we would determine the manner in which witnesses to a hearing will appear.

     Remember, this is a proposal. It has to be published in the Federal Register for public comment. The agency must consider the comments before submitting a final proposal to OMB for approval. This process can take well over a year. Congressional opposition could derail the proposal.

Off Topic: I'm Not Sure About All Of This

     The Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is an umbrella group for organizations supporting the rights of the disabled in the United States. This is from a recent position paper they've put out on service animals:

... Public transportation, as well as Amtrak, must allow any service animal trained to work or perform tasks with the exception of primates and exotic snakes. Any limitations must preserve access for all species and sizes of dogs, cats, rabbits, miniature horses, capuchin monkeys, and other species that can be trained to behave appropriately and be safely brought on public transit and rail. ...

Why Do Technical Denials Keep Increasing?

     The Social Security Administration has just published its Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2017.  Yes, they were unable to get the 2017 annual report until now.

     Here's one table from the report:

     Note that the technical denials keep increasing. Why?

"25 Jaw-Dropping Facts About Social Security"

     The Motley Fool is running a listicle of 25 Jaw-Dropping Facts About Social Security. Here's number 3:

0.6%

The Social Security program is probably more efficient than you might think. Out of its budget of roughly $1 trillion, only 0.6% is used for administrative expenses.

What's Going On In The Region 4 RCALJ Office?

     I thought I would pass this along. It's a letter from the Office of Social Security's Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge (RCALJ) for Region 4, the Atlanta Region. This is acknowledgment of an appeal I filed from the attorney fee approved by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The fee approved was $0. This was a case where my firm has been representing the claimant since 2010. We have had a fee approved for work done before a federal court but the ALJ approved nothing for all the work done before the Social Security Administration, even though this involved two hearings and working on the case for more than eight years. No, the Court can't approve a fee for work done before the agency or vice versa. 

     The thing you should particularly note is what this says at the bottom: "Enclosure: Copy of letter dated November 08, 2017." That's a copy of the letter I sent them appealing the $0 approval. It's taken 11 months to get that office to even acknowledge the appeal. Yes, we've been calling them about this and they have long since acknowledged over the telephone that they had the appeal.

     It's not just me and this isn't an exceptional case. Other attorneys in this Region can confirm that this is a general problem which has been worsening over many years. The volume of these fee appeals isn't great, even in Social Security's largest region. You have to wonder what's going on. I'm not sure that even the phrase "low priority" would describe the situation.

Commissioner's Message On Compassionate Allowances

From: ^Commissioner Broadcast
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 10:38 AM
Subject: Ten Years of Compassionate Allowances!

A Message To All SSA and DDS Employees 

Subject: Ten Years of Compassionate Allowances!

On October 27^th, we will celebrate the 10^th Anniversary of the Compassionate Allowances program.  Over the past decade, Compassionate Allowances have helped us identify and fast-track cases for individuals who have diseases and other medical conditions that are most likely to be approved for disability benefits.  To date, over 500,000 people with serious disabilities have been approved through this fast-track, policy-compliant disability process. 

In August, we added five new conditions to the list.  Their inclusion continues our commitment to ensure people with qualifying disabilities quickly receive the benefits they need.  For a complete list of conditions and other useful information, I encourage you to visit our Compassionate Allowances page.

In celebrating 10 years of the Compassionate Allowances program, we also celebrate you.  To each of you, I say ‘thank you’ for your excellence and dedication in making a difference in the lives of those we serve each day.

Nancy A. Berryhill
Acting Commissioner

Lexis Nexis Falls Afoul Of OIG

     From a press release:

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and LexisNexis Risk Solutions (LNRS), a LexisNexis Group subsidiary, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the Government’s claim that LNRS violated Section 1140 of the Social Security Act by publishing misleading online advertising regarding “SSA Verify.”

 

LNRS had marketed “SSA Verify” for its access to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Consent Based Social Security Number Verification (CBSV) service. LNRS cooperated with the OIG inquiry; the firm immediately discontinued the at-issue advertising upon receiving notice of the Government’s allegation and subsequently discontinued offering the CBSV service to its customers. In the settlement agreement, LNRS did not admit violating the law but agreed to comply with Section 1140 and pay a civil monetary penalty of $54,000.

 

SSA makes CBSV available to companies for a fee; the service is typically used by companies that provide financial services, provide background checks, and satisfy licensing requirements. With the consent of a Social Security number (SSN) holder, CBSV verifies whether the SSN holder’s information matches SSA’s records. CBSV does not verify an individual’s identity or provide a participant’s customers with a direct link to Social Security records. Participant companies agree not to use the words Social Security or other CBSV program-related words, acronyms, emblems and symbols in connection with an advertisement for identity verification. LNRS marketed CBSV as “SSA Verify,” suggesting the product offered SSA identify verification, while also asserting that the service provided LNRS customers with a direct link to Social Security records.

 

Section 1140, a consumer protection law, establishes two broad prohibited activities:

• Prohibits people and companies from misleading consumers through various communications by giving a false impression of association with or endorsement by SSA; and
• Prohibits reproducing and selling Social Security publications and forms without authorization, as well as charging for services SSA provides free without providing proper notices. ...