How Is A Disabled Person Supposed To Look?

     From Imani Barbarin, writing for Forbes:

A new policy proposal by the Trump Administration calls for the surveillance of disabled people’s social media profiles to determine the necessity of their disability benefits. The proposal, which reportedly aims to cut down on the number of fraudulent disability claims would monitor the profiles of disabled people and flag content that shows them doing physical activities. When it comes down to it, the policy dictates that disabled people shouldn’t be seen living their lives for fear of losing vital financial aid and, possibly, medical care. ...

The proposal, like many of its policies regarding disabled people, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of disability and takes advantage of how social media operates in order to cut them off from the support they need. Disabled people don’t all function in the same way and disability is not a set of stereotypes like taking selfies staring longingly at the world. They live lives while managing their energy for the activities they can handle and trying to make those they cannot more accessible. ...

The truth about disability is that it isn’t a series of down moments but both highs and lows that comprise their lives. Simply because disabled people are seen exercising, dancing or shooting hoops does not mean that they have the ability to sustain that level of energy all day. ...

New HALLEX Provision Makes Me Wonder

     From material newly added to Social Security's HALLEX manual, which contains policy and procedure material for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and the Appeals Council:

When an ALJ approved a final draft decision but is unavailable to sign the decision, the HOCALJ has the authority to sign the final decision and any associated orders if the ALJ gave the HOCALJ written authorization to sign the decision on the ALJ's behalf. Any such written authorization must be associated with the claim(s) file and must include the following affirmative statements:

• The ALJ has read the decision and any associated order;
  
• The ALJ concurs with the decision (and any associated order) as written or concurs with the decision (and any associated order) with specified changes previously reviewed and approved by the ALJ before authorization; and
  
• “HOCALJ [NAME]” is authorized to sign the decision and any associated order on the ALJ's behalf.
  

The ALJ may give written authorization via email, fax, or any other writing. However, unless the authorization is provided through an official agency email, the ALJ must sign the written authorization with his or her “wet” signature (facsimile transmission is accepted). The ALJ may not use a rubber stamp or other mechanical signature. A HOCALJ may not use this procedure on his or her own initiative without specific written authorization from the ALJ.

If all of the requirements are met, the HOCALJ may sign the decision and any accompanying order.

     Previously, the rule had been that another ALJ subbing for a departed ALJ could sign only a fully favorable decision. A denial decision could not be sent out without a new hearing. I think this new provision is legally dubious. It treats the hearing as if it's a meaningless formality.
     Oddly, in North Carolina in recent months we've had several ALJs suddenly retire with no advance warning when they had hearings scheduled and decisions to be written. There were in the office on Friday and gone on Monday. The reports we've received indicate no dramatic health development in any of the cases. Each of the ALJs involved was an outlier, in one cases approving claimants at a low rate and in the rest of the cases approving claimants at a high rate. In one case there were signs of pressure from the agency but in that case I think there was universal agreement that pressure was merited because the ALJ, who approved only a low percentage of claimants, had a huge and growing backlog of decisions to be issued. In the other cases, there has been no sign of pressure. However, this cluster of cases seems very odd. I haven't heard of other examples from other parts of the country but this new provision in HALLEX makes me wonder.

First Lucia Remand

     I have received the first report of a case remanded by Social Security's Appeals Council on account of the Supreme Court decision in Lucia v. SEC. It was sent back to a different Administrative Law Judge.

Social Security Offfers Employees Early Retirement -- Except For ALJs

     From Federal News Network:

For at least the third time in the last seven years, the Social Security Administration is trying to reduce the average age, if not the size, of its workforce.

SSA sent out a note to all employees April 2 saying it would be offering Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) to all employees except for administrative law judges. ...

Employees must have at least 20 years of federal service and be at least 50-years old, or have at least 25 years of federal service regardless of age.

     It's interesting that ALJs are excluded. The Office of Hearings Operations, where the ALJs work, is probably the only part of Social Security with a declining backlog.

New Hearing On Enhancing Social Security

     From a press release:

House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John B. Larson (D-CT) announced today that the Subcommittee is holding the third hearing in its series on “Protecting and Improving Social Security.” The hearing, “Comprehensive Legislative Proposals to Enhance Social Security,”  will take place on Wednesday, April 10, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., in room 2020 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

SSA Employee Alleged To Have Created Fictitious Identities So He Could File False Claims

     From a press release:

A federal grand jury has indicted Cheikh Ahmet Tidiane Cisse, age 43, of Baltimore, Maryland, on federal charges in connection with a scheme in which Cisse allegedly filed fraudulent claims for Social Security benefits using fictitious identities and the identities of actual individuals, and attempted to collected over $236,000.  The indictment was returned on April 3, 2019. ...

Cisse was employed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) as a Claims Specialist.  The 14-count indictment alleges that between July 2018 and March 2019, Cisse used his position at SSA to create fictitious identities within the SSA’s social security number database in order to file fictitious claims for benefits.  The indictment alleges that Cisse used both fictitious identities and the identities of actual individuals to file the fraudulent claims and stole or attempted to steal over $236,000 from SSA.

The indictment alleges that Cisse would input false information into SSA systems indicating that he had witnessed original documents, such as birth certificates, and marriage and divorce decrees, when in fact he had not.  In one instance, when SSA withheld payment due to suspected fraud, the indictment alleges that Cisse contacted SSA’s payment center and falsely relayed that the purported beneficiary had called inquiring about the whereabouts of the payment, which caused the payment center to release the funds.  Cisse allegedly directed payments on the fraudulent claims into accounts he controlled, then spent the funds through cash withdrawals and retail purchases. ...

     I've said it before. Social Security spent a lot of money getting sophisticated software intended to catch sophisticated schemes by attorneys representing Social Security claimants. It looks like what they've found instead has been some not so sophisticated Social Security employee schemes. Anybody at the operational level could have told you, Eric Conn was a bizarre one off.

Websites Back Up

     I had posted earlier this week that Social Security’s websites showing the number and total amount of attorney fees that Social Security has paid each month and contact information for its payment centers had disappeared. They’re back up now. I have no idea what happened.

More Disability Recipients Returning To Work?

     Scott Horsley at National Public Radio is looking for stories of people who have gone back to work after being on Social Security disability benefits. He thinks that an increasing number are going back to work. I don't think that's accurate.