Delay After Delay

     From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Today is the day Isaac Everhart has long been waiting for, the day he appears before an administrative law judge with the Social Security Administration in a bid for disability benefits.

Isaac is counting on the benefits to lift his wife, Violet, and daughter, Tiffany, out of their subsistence existence – the result of his inability to work since 2015 because of a back injury. ...

Isaac assumes the hearing is just a formality, that the judge will make an immediate ruling to grant him monthly disability checks and retroactive pay to the date of his fall. But he is mistaken.

At the end of the hearing, the judge informs Isaac that a review of the material in the nearly six-inch binder could take as long as 75 days. If the decision is in Isaac’s favor, it would likely be three to six months before Isaac sees the first check.

The news reduces Isaac to tears.

“I don’t understand how they can make us wait any longer,” Isaac tells his lawyer. ...

      No, it's not likely to take three to six months to get first payment of benefits. In most cases, it's a month. It can certainly take longer to get everything paid, particularly if there's a windfall offset or a workers compensation offset but it doesn't sound like that would be the case here. The 75 days to get an ALJ decision would be on the optimistic side where I practice. There's a big backlog in getting out ALJ decisions nationally. It's good that this article talks about the delays AFTER an ALJ hearing is held. They're significant. Claimants also need relief on that side.

Judge Finds Failure To Provide SSI In Puerto Rico Unconstitutional

From the Associated Press:

A U.S. judge said Monday that the federal government is violating the Constitution by prohibiting people who live in Puerto Rico from receiving Supplemental Security Income.
The opinion was issued as Judge Gustavo Gelpi dismissed a lawsuit filed by the federal government seeking to recover more than $28,000 in SSI disability benefits paid to a U.S. citizen after he moved from New York to the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.

Gelpi said a clause in the Constitution that allows federal legislators to enact rules and regulations for U.S. territories is not "carte blanche for Congress to switch on and off at its convenience the fundamental constitutional rights to due process and equal protection."

"Congress, likewise, cannot demean and brand said United States citizen while in Puerto Rico with a stigma of inferior citizenship to that of his brethren nationwide," Gelpi wrote, adding that powers granted under the Constitution are not infinite.

The ruling involved the case of Jose Luis Vaello Madero, who lived in New York from 1985 until 2013, when he moved to Puerto Rico. He continued to receive payments until 2016, when he was told he was ineligible. The Social Security Administration then filed civil action against him in 2017 demanding he return the funds he received. ...

     If this holds up on appeal, it's enormously important in Puerto Rico. Let's use Mississippi for comparison. About 121,000 Mississippians out of a population of about 2.9 million draw SSI. If the same proportion of the population of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, about 3.2 million, were to draw SSI it would be about 134,000 people but Puerto Rico is certainly poorer than Mississippi so it would be more.
     Before you yawn and say that's interesting but what does it have to do with me, consider this. Puerto Rico residents should immediately start filing SSI claims to give themselves protective filing dates. The Puerto Rico field offices aren't ready for this and will need lots of outside held. However, the real avalanche of SSI claims will come if this holds up on appeal. Taking and adjudicating those claims will be an enormous undertaking for an understaffed agency. It will take resources away from other parts of the agency.

     By the way, everyone knows that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, right?

PACER Gouging

From the New Republic:

 … Three legal nonprofit groups—the National Veterans Legal Services Program, the National Consumer Law Center, and Alliance for Justice—filed a class action lawsuit against the federal government in 2016 to challenge PACER’s fee structure. …  

 The PACER system itself brought in more than $146 million in fees during the 2016 fiscal year, even though it cost just over $3 million to operate. …  

     Social Security attorneys who practice in the federal courts are big users of PACER.  This rankles.

Democrats Support In-Person Social Security Hearings

     From a press release:

Top Democrats responsible for Social Security policy in the House and Senate yesterday called on the Social Security Administration to withdraw a proposed rule that would limit the right of Americans to receive an in-person appeals hearing if their initial application for Social Security benefits is denied. Workers who are eligible to apply for these benefits have contributed to Social Security for years, paying into the program with each paycheck.

“This change would deprive millions of Americans of their constitutional right to due process and result in hearings which are less fair and less efficient. This proposal is harmful and not justified and we request that SSA withdraw this proposed rule,” the members wrote. 

The letter was signed by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal, (D-MA), House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John Larson (D-CT), House Ways and Means Worker & Family Support Subcommittee Chairman Danny K. Davis (D-IL), Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Senate Finance Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

In the letter, the members outlined why video hearings are inferior to in-person hearings. In a video hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) may be limited in their ability to thoroughly evaluate the impact that an individual’s impairments have on their ability to work, and disabled individuals may not be able to fully and effectively present their case. The Social Security Administration has a large backlog of individuals awaiting an appeal hearing, and the delays cause significant harm to individuals who have worked years to earn their Social Security benefits but have suffered a career-ending injury or illness. ...

The full letter can be found here.

Surgeon Convicted Of Social Security Fraud

     From the Shreveport Times:

A Shreveport surgeon was found guilty by a federal jury on Friday of stealing more than $200,000 in Social Security disability payments. 

Dr. John Owings, chief of trauma at LSU Health Shreveport, was found guilty of 20 counts of theft of government property and one count of concealing or failing to disclose an event affecting right to a government benefits. 

The United States presented evidence during trial showing that Owings applied for disability benefits in 2008 and continued to receive those benefits through June of 2017, after returning to work in 2012,” a release from the Department of Justice states. “When Owings went back to work as a surgeon at the University of California-Davis in 2012, making $22,000 a month, he failed to tell the Social Security Administration (SSA) about his return to work.” ...

 Shreveport surgeon was found guilty by a federal jury on Friday of stealing more than $200,000 in Social Security disability payments.

Are Undocumented Immigrants Such A Bad Thing?

     Those nasty undocumented immigrants that Donald Trump wants to keep out of this country with a fence are actually contributing about $13 billion a year to the Social Security trust funds. Why exactly is it crucial that we hunt down and deport all of these immigrants when the U.S. birth rate is so low?

Democrats Coalescing Around Social Security 2100 Act

Congressman Larson

     John Larson, the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, and Democratic Senators Blumenthal and Van Hollen have introduced the Social Security 2100 Act which would increase Social Security benefits and reduce taxes paid on Social Security benefits. The bill would also increase the FICA tax in two ways. Income over $400,000 would be covered by the FICA tax and the FICA rate itself would climb by 0.1% a year between 2020 and 2043. The bill has 200 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, all Democrats. 

      The Office of Chief Actuary at Social Security has now scored the Social Security 2100 Act. It would leave the Social Security trust funds in balance for the next 75 years at least.

     There is little hope that such a bill would pass with Republicans in control of the Senate. However, Democrats running for Congress and the White House in 2020 may choose to run on this bill and then try to pass it in 2021.

Proposed Regulations On Inability To Communicate In English And A Foreshadowing Of Something Bigger

     Social Security has posted proposed regulations on removing inability to communicate in English as an education category in determining disability. This is only a proposal. The public can comment on it. Social Security is supposed to consider the comments. Congressional opposition can sometimes head off proposed regulations. Sometimes, the agency change its mind or there's a change of administrations before proposed regulations can be finalized.

     Note the following language from the explanation of the proposal which may foreshadow more consequential changes:

The increase in labor force participation by individuals who lack English proficiency may be in part due to the increase in low-skilled work in the national economy. In 2014, our Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics (ORES) prepared an Evidence Synthesis consolidating information from research we commissioned and other available research for the purposes of modernizing our vocational regulations. ORES' literature review on the vocational factor of education indicates that with the introduction of new technology replacing moderately skilled workers, there are fewer moderately skilled jobs and higher numbers of low and high skilled jobs.

     I've given Social Security's link to the "Evidence Synthesis" but I'm not seeing it there.
     This could foreshadow changes to Social Security's "grid" regulations used in determining disability that would greatly disadvantage individuals who lack job skills. It could even be a sign that they want to abolish the grid regulations. We should not underestimate the maximalist impulses of the Trump Administration or its willingness to act in the absence of any evidence supporting its actions.
     In my experience, I've not seen higher numbers of low skilled jobs. My impression is that the exact opposite is the case. The assembly jobs that used to be widely available to people who can only handle simple work have largely disappeared from the U.S. economy. I've seen nothing else picking up the slack.