Opposition To CDR Speedup Spreads

     From Newsweek:

More than 140 lawmakers in the House and Senate have signed open letters hitting out at a "harmful and unjustified" Trump administration proposal that could see thousands of Americans lose their disability benefits.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were among those who put their names to the letters calling on the administration to scrap its proposed rule change, which would increase the frequency of disability reviews faced by some benefits recipients if it comes into effect.

The Senate letter was signed by a total of 41 senators. Newsweek understands that more than 100 signatures have been collected on the House letter so far, with more to come. ...

Further Telework Cuts

     From Government Executive:

The Social Security Administration on Monday informed employees of its various subcomponents that it will move forward with new cuts to telework policies, a move quickly decried by union officials who said they were left out of the notification process. ...

Rich Couture, who serves both as a spokesman for the American Federation of Government Employees’ general committee representing Social Security employees and president of AFGE Council 215, which represents workers at the agency’s hearings and appeals offices, said management similarly rejected his own efforts to learn about the changes, and that he spent much of his afternoon in meetings and working with fellow union representatives to cobble together a list of the reforms across the agency.

“I’ve got to tell you, the depth of disrespect and disregard for AFGE with the rollout of this announcement, where the press found out before the union and the union found out at the last minute through a bare-bones notice . . . this basically illustrates to me that there’s no relationship anymore between SSA and AFGE,” Couture said. “There was no advance notice to the local reps that these meetings were to be held, and we have a statutory right to advance notice. This is part of a consistent trend along those lines that this was entirely deliberate.”

According to reports from various union officials, the telework cuts vary by agency subcomponent. In the most drastic instance, legal assistants who do pre- and post-hearing case development work for administrative law judges will only be able to work remotely one day per two-week pay period, down from the current policy allowing employees to telework up to three days per week.

Workers in the Office of Quality Review, which has had telework for nearly 20 years, will all see their existing telework agreements slashed by one day per week. And although there is no policy change for attorneys who do decision-writing for administrative law judges in the Office of Hearings and Appeals, each employee with an existing telework agreement must file paperwork to apply for a new one by February 7 or lose the ability to work remotely altogether. ...

Social Security’s actions appear to defy the spirit of a congressional mandate enacted last month as part of the fiscal 2020 appropriations bills, which instructed the agency to come up with a plan to restore telework to employees in its operations divisions within 60 days. ...

Union Asks "Where Is Saul?"

     Below are two graphics that the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a labor union which represents most Social Security employees, sent to its members recently. Apparently, the milk carton graphic was sent 25 days after the "Where is Saul" graphic.

     I can guess that Social Security has some online system that employees use to sign in and out and that any agency employees can check to see if any other agency employee is on duty. If that's the case, I don't know why Saul wouldn't use it. It seems quite unlikely that he was away from his office for more than two months. I hope that's not the case.

Union Files Grievance

     The labor union that represents most Social Security employees has filed a grievance against the agency based upon the alleged failure to provide physical security at agency offices. The complaint concerns the unescorted presence of contractors and cleaners and the like. This may or may not be a threat to the security of Social Security data but I don’t see how it is a threat to union members.

Saul To Testify Before Congressional Committee

     Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security will make his first appearance before a Congressional committee as Commissioner on January 29 at 9:30. It will be before the Senate Special Committee on Aging and the hearing will concern "Social Security Impersonation Scam." 

     Will the House Social Security Subcommittee schedule even one oversight hearing in this Congress?

Social Security Loses In CA3 On Issue Of When Lucia Argument Had To Have Been Raised

     After the Supreme Court held in Lucia v. SEC that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) as then appointed were unconstitutional, there was the inevitable issue of which Social Security claimants would get new hearings. The Social Security Administration argued that the issue had to have been raised before the Administrative Law Judge or at least before the Appeals Council. They have now given up on the argument that Lucia had to have been raised before the ALJ and have remanded all of the cases where the Lucia issue was raised at least before the Appeals Council. The issue of whether the issue had to have been raised at least before the Appeals Council is being litigated in the federal courts. 

     We have our first Court of Appeals opinions in one of the post-Lucia Social Security cases, Cirko v. Commissioner, a Third Circuit case. Social Security lost. The Court held that it did not matter that the Lucia issue wasn't raised until after the matter reached the United States District Court.

     Social Security is still litigating this issue before other Courts of Appeals. It's possible that the agency will win elsewhere. If that happens, the issue will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Why Not Just Ban The Testimony Outright?

     From the summary of a change to Social Security's HALLEX manual:

We clarified that an ALJ must obtain concurrence from the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge (HOCALJ), Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge (RCALJ), and Regional Commissioner (RC) of the appropriate region to request the testimony of a particular FO [Field Office] employee at an appearance. We removed the phrase stating that the RCALJ may waive notification of the request because RCALJ's concurrence is now required.

     How might this come up? Let's say it's the testimony of a claimant that a particular field office employee, that he can identify by name, told him that he could not file a claim for Social Security benefits and that advice was incorrect and cost the claimant money. The Social Security Act would allow backdating of a claim in this circumstance. Wouldn't the field office employee's testimony be relevant?

Where Are We This Afternoon?

     Social Security's ERE system which attorneys like me use to obtain access to the agency's records on our clients is working. However, there are persistent reports that there are major problem across computer systems at Social Security preventing many, perhaps most, agency employees from fully doing their jobs. I'm sure they're concentrating on what can be done without using the IT systems but I'm sure they can only do so much offline. Maybe something this extensive has happened previously but it certainly hasn't happened lately. This is a big deal and Social Security needs to get out a press release.