Jan 9, 2021

Serious Question

      When was the last time anyone at Social Security saw Andrew Saul?

Jan 8, 2021

Supreme Court To Again Consider Hearing Puerto Rico SSI Case

     The Supreme Court has "relisted" U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, the case presenting the issue of the constitutionality of denying SSI to U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico and most other U.S. territories. This means that the Court will once again consider whether to agree to hear the case. John Elwood, writing for SCOTUSblog, says that the Court is likely to agree to hear the case.

     This case is a big freaking deal to Social Security world. If the Court finds that it's unconstitutional to deny SSI to Puerto Rico residents, there will be an avalanche of new claims. All parts of the Social Security Administration will be affected. I expect that it will be the biggest logistical challenge for the agency since the creation of SSI in the 1970s.

     It's not clear what position that the new Administration will take on this case. The nomination of Merrick Garland to be Attorney General suggests that the Biden Administration will follow traditional policies which include defending the constitutionality of any statue but there's not been an announcement of a Solicitor General nomination. It's the Solicitor General who actually handles Supreme Court cases for the federal government. The Trump Administration abandoned traditional policies and routinely refused to defend statutes it disagreed with. If the Biden Administration follows suit, it could settle this case as well as any class actions on the issue. Yes, even cases scheduled for oral argument at the Supreme Court can be settled.

     Update: The Supreme Court took no action on the Vaello-Madero case today.

More Eric Conn Litigation

      From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

A former client of disbarred attorney Eric C. Conn has sued to try to overturn hundreds of small-claims lawsuit judgments that Conn pursued against people he represented in Eastern Kentucky.

The judgments have likely caused problems for Conn’s former clients that include damage to their credit scores, losing out on loans and being passed over for jobs, the lawsuit claims. ...

The man who sued Conn, James K. Gillman, is serving a two-year jail sentence and fears the judgment Conn obtained against him will jeopardize his chance of being released on parole, said his attorney, Ned Pillersdorf. ...

     I assume these judgments were for the costs that Conn incurred in representing his clients, both the costs of obtaining existing medical records and the costs of the medical exams done at Conn's office that became part of Conn's criminal problems. I'm surprised he sued over these costs. I doubt that it was cost effective but a lot of what Conn did made no sense. Some people would rather earn a dishonest nickel than an honest dollar.

Read more here: https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article248288575.html?utm_source=BenchmarkEmail&utm_campaign=Today%27s_Daily_Clips_%7c_January_6_2021&utm_medium=email#storylink=cpy

Read more here: https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article248288575.html?utm_source=BenchmarkEmail&utm_campaign=Today%27s_Daily_Clips_%7c_January_6_2021&utm_medium=email#storylink=cpy

Jan 7, 2021

No SSI For Territories Because It Might Cause Inflation?

      From Pacific Daily News:

Providing cash assistance to Guam’s elderly and people with disabilities could cause inflation here, according to the Justice Department, which argued it therefore is reasonable for Congress to deny Supplemental Security Income benefits to U.S. citizens living on Guam.

Denying local eligibility for SSI benefits also is reasonable because of the island’s unique tax relationship with the federal government, the Justice Department stated in a brief filed late last week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Justice Department is challenging a June 2020 ruling by District Court of Guam Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, who said denying SSI payments to Guam resident Katrina Schaller, a woman with a disability, is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The judge prohibited the federal government from continuing to enforce the discriminatory provisions against Schaller. ...


Jan 6, 2021

Unions Unanimous In Wanting Saul Gone

      From a press release:  

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) joined together today calling for the ouster of Social Security Administration Commissioner Andrew Saul and Deputy Commissioner David Black. The joint effort comes on the heels of last month’s overwhelming votes of no confidence in the SSA leaders by the members of AFGE Council 220, National Council of SSA Field Operations Locals,and IFPTE Judicial Council 1, the Association of Administrative Law Judges (JC1/AALJ). ...

Jan 5, 2021

Strange Bedfellow

      The Cato Institute, a right wing "think tank which has pushed a plan to privatize Social Security, has joined in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Carr v. U.S. arguing that Social Security claimants should be able to raise the issue of the constitutionality of the appointments of ALJs even though they had not raised the issue before the agency.

Jan 4, 2021

As Expected

      From CNN:

On Joe Biden's first day as President, his White House will issue a memo to halt or delay midnight regulations and actions taken by the Trump administration that will not have taken effect by Inauguration Day, Biden transition spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters on Wednesday. ...

     This would include the new musculoskeletal listings at Social Security. However, if Andrew Saul tries to stay in office, it would be possible, in theory, for him to refuse to stay the regulation.


Jan 3, 2021

SCOTUS Schedules Oral Arguments In Appointments Clause Cases

      The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for Carr v. Saul and Davis v. Saul for March 3. The issue presented by these cases is "Whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an appointments-clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings."