Three Listings Extended

     Social Security has extended without change the Listings for Low Birth Weight and Failure to Thrive, Endocrine Disorders, and Cancer (Malignant Neoplastic Diseases). Each of the Listings has an expiration date. They must be extended or modified by that date.

Who Gets Your Vote?

find bike trails

Some Tentative Musings About The Future For Benficiaries

     Alicia H. Munnell, the director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, has penned a piece for Marketwatch on the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on Social Security. She's not definite. It's not possible to be at this point. She suggests that even though there will be no near term effect upon Social Security's ability to pay benefits, the economic effects of Covid-19 may hasten the day that something will have to be done about the Social Security trust funds. She also believes it is possible there will be no cost of living adjustment in Social Security benefits this year because the economic crisis has stopped inflation. In the long run, Munnell thinks that there may be some effect upon future Social Security payments to those whose earnings are reduced or absent now due to Covid-19. Low income workers may be the ones most affected.

What A Mess

     Can Social Security start holding in person hearings prior to the release of a vaccine for Covid-19? Many disability claimants are immunocompromised because of medication they're taking. Even if everything else is reopening, it may be inadvisable for them to attend a hearing. And it's not just the claimants. Some of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who hold the hearings are immunocompromised as are some of the attorneys, vocational experts and hearing reporters who attend the hearings. Many others are at additional risk from Covid-19 because of their age. I really want to get back to in person hearings but can they be held with reasonable safety for all the participants?

Still No Update To Fee Payments Stats

     I pointed out a few months ago that Social Security was late in posting updates on the amount of fees paid to attorneys and others representing claimants before the agency.

     They still haven't posted an update. The last one posted was for November 2019. I don't know why but it looks like a decision was made to stop posting the numbers. Is a report still being compiled internally?

New List Of Sanctioned Attorney And Non-Attorney Representatives

     The Social Security Administration has posted an updated list of attorney and non-attorney representatives who have been barred from representing claimants before the agency due to misconduct. It's a cumulative list that goes back to the late 1980s. Here are the names added in the last year. The date listed is the date the person was sanctioned.

• Calder, Jarrett Skipper,  South Carolina, Attorney, 7/25/19
• Hoegh, Thomas,  California, Attorney, 2/18/20
• Isayan, Andranik California, Non-attorney, 8/2/19
• Krout, Jr., Dale E., Florida Attorney, 6/10/19
• Liles, Sean, Michigan, Attorney, 5/20/19
• Melkonian, Lousine, California, Non-attorney, 7/1/19
• Patrick, Megan Mariah, Misissippi, Attorney, 12/9/19
• Pogosian, Ani, California, Non-attorney, 9/4/19
• Smith Grayson,Christy, Kentucky, Attorney 12/9/19

     Almost half the list comes from the state of California. The three non-attorneys from California were all sanctioned around the same time and all have surnames of Armenian origin. I don't know what the story is there. I'm guessing it was a group thing.

NADE Newsletter

     From the Spring 2020 newsletter of the National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), the voluntary organization of personnel who make disability determinations for Social Security at the initial and reconsideration levels, concerning a meeting with Grace Kim, Social Security's Deputy Commissioner of Operations and John Owen, the Associate Commissioner of the Office of Disability Determinations:

... The NADE board brought up an agenda item that was noticed in various regions. There have been problems seen where the DDS [Disability Determination Service] is contacted by an office claiming to be an appointed representative who filed the SSA-1696 [appointing an attorney or other person to represent a Social Security disability claimant] with the field office but it is not in the electronic file. Grace mentioned that this is a customer service issue and someone has been appointed to look into the issue. ...

     This is a big problem for people like me. We keep submitting  the 1696 form repeatedly and field offices do nothing with it. This leaves us incapable of representing the claimant before the agency. This problem has been around for years and it's been getting worse.
     I don't understand the process but, apparently, it's ridiculously difficult for field office personnel to enter the appointment of a representative in their computer system. I think most of those who represent claimants would prefer some system where we could enter the information directly. I don't see how imposing this work load on field office personnel adds any layer of protection for claimants or the system. If there's some issue with us abusing the system, it's not hard to find us or to take action against us.

     There is also material in the newsletter about how NADE members are coping with the changes brought about by Covid-19. I'm not going to reproduce any excerpts here but reading it might be a good idea for those who have had little contact with DDS personnel. There are a lot of unjustified negative attitudes about disability examiners. The system may be uncaring but the people aren't.

Arbitrator Finds Bad Faith Bargaining

     From Government Executive:

An independent arbitrator last week ruled that the Social Security Administration violated federal labor law by engaging in bad faith bargaining in its contract negotiations with a union representing administrative law judges who preside over Social Security disability cases. 

The ruling is a result of a grievance filed by the Association of Administrative Law Judges, which accused the agency of repeatedly denying the union’s requests for information while the parties prepared to negotiate a new contract. 

In its grievance, the union highlighted a number of instances when routine requests for data related to provisions in its collective bargaining agreement were delayed or denied. These requests included detailed disposition data for the agency’s administrative law judge corps, the estimated cost of training a new administrative law judge, the criteria by which the agency places ALJs under “close supervision” and data supporting the need for the agency’s demand for a seven-year contract term. 

In many of these cases, arbitrator Malcolm Pritzker found the agency’s denials did not meet the standard needed to justify withholding information. In one instance, he noted that although the agency claimed the union’s request regarding the proposed contract duration was “not related to collective bargaining,” officials eventually used the requested data as part of the agency's justification for the contract length before the Federal Service Impasses Panel. ...