Saul Nomination To Get Committee Vote Tomorrow

     The Senate Finance Committe has scheduled a vote on Andrew Saul’s nomination for Social Security Commissioner for tomorrow.

20 Injured At Social Security Field Office In Egg Harbor, N.J.

     From NBC:

Twenty people were injured, two of them seriously, Tuesday morning after a car crashed into a Social Security building in New Jersey, At least one person was critically injured and another in serious condition after a 1998 Nissan Sentra smashed into the lobby of the building in Egg Harbor Township about 9:50 a.m. ET, police said. 

At least one person was critically injured and another in serious condition after a 1998 Nissan Sentra smashed into the lobby of the building in Egg Harbor Township about 9:50 a.m. ET, police said.

Anybody Want To Guess What Happened Here?

     From the Des Moines Register:

One need only glance at Marla Del Carmen’s small, gnarled hands to begin to understand how rheumatoid arthritis has crippled her since 19.  

 The 62-year-old works some, but she relies heavily on Social Security disability to get by.  

 Or, she did.  

 This month, Del Carmen received an odd letter from the Social Security Administration informing her that her disability benefit would increase to $687 a month. But then the letter said those payments were being suspended because “you were not a United States citizen or lawfully present in the U.S.” 

That was news to Del Carmen. She was born in Des Moines with a Hebrew maiden name and has spent all her life on the east side. 

 

 She is married to a Hispanic man, Mateo Del Carmen Hernandez, a permanent resident of the United States, for more than 22 years.  ... 

 With immigration the chief focus of President Donald Trump’s administration, Del Carmen says she can’t help but feel targeted by the federal government. She said it appeared she was disqualified from federal benefits solely because of her married name.  

“I’ve never been to another country. I don’t even have a passport,” she said. “I have to take chemo for my arthritis and I have COPD, so I can’t travel.” Del Carmen said she checked with the Des Moines Social Security office, and no one had applied fraudulently for her benefits. ...

The Election Results: Effects On Proposed Regulations

     On October 29 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the publication of proposed new regulations that would allow the Social Security Administration to force video hearings on claimants who don't want them. Normally, once OMB approves the publication of proposed regulations, Social Security publishes them in the Federal Register within a week or two. It hasn't been that long but this one hasn't yet been published.

     I wonder whether the Acting Commissioner of Social Security will sign off on publishing this proposal now. The incoming Democratic majority on the House Social Security Subcommittee is likely to be strongly opposed to this proposal. In my experience, the Social Security Administration has always been highly responsive to the House Social Security Subcommittee, far more responsive than to the White House or the Senate, neither of which is interested in getting down in the weeds of Social Security issues. Perhaps the Acting Commissioner would prefer to leave this hanging until there's a confirmed Commissioner to make the decision. We’ll see.

     For that matter, there's a proposal to remove inability to communicate in English as an education category in the grid regulations that's pending OMB review. Assuming OMB approves it, will Social Security ever publish it? More important, proposed changes to the musculoskeletal listings have already been published. The comments to that proposal may get much more serious consideration now.

Report On Culbertson v. Berryhill Oral Argument

     SCOTUSblog reports on this past week’s oral argument before the Supreme Court in Culbertson v. Berryhill, a case concerning the cap or caps on attorney fees for representing Social Security claimants in federal court.

Does This Story Add Up To You?

     A Cleveland television station reports on a Social Security overpayment case. Here's the scenario. Woman's mother dies. She says she informed Social Security of the death yet the direct deposit of her mother's Social Security benefits continued for ten years.  At one point she even opened a new bank account to continue receiving the money. She says that over the years she just never thought about the bank account and never took out any of the money. Now she's worrying about repaying all the money. 

     Does this story add up to you?

     By the way, the television station's take on the story was only to wonder how in the world Social Security kept paying benefits all that time.

Proposed Regulations On Consideration Of Pain

     The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the White House, to approve publication of proposed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on Consideration of Pain in the Adult Disability Determination Process. Here's the only explanation available of the proposal:

Our regulations set a two-step process for evaluating pain in disability claims, at which we identify the existence of medical evidence supporting pain and evaluate the intensity of the alleged pain respectively. With this ANPRM we seek to solicit public comment on these existing rules to determine whether they align with current medicine and health care research.

     This isn't even a proposal at this point. They'll only be seeking comments on what a proposal should be.

Transcript Of Culbertson v. Berryhill Oral Argument

     The Supreme Court has posted the transcript of the oral argument in Culbertson v. Berryhill, concerning attorney fees for federal court work. The argument was more spirited than I would have thought. I wouldn't predict the Court's decision in this case but I would predict that it won't be unanimous. 

     To my mind this is a straightforward plain language case. The statute says there's a separate cap on attorney fees for federal court. You can certainly make an argument that it shouldn't say that but that's what it says. If that's not what Congress intended, they can change the statute but it's not up to the Court to change it to something they think makes more sense. Judges or justices shouldn't use the plain language argument only when it suits their purposes and ignore it when they don't like the result. Plain language should always be the first consideration.