No Remedy For Unconstitutional Commissioner

     From the Court's summary of the 9th Circuit's decision in Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, decided on April 27, 2022:

... Claimant challenged the constitutionality of the statute that governed the President’s removal authority over the Commissioner, and the district court’s grant of the Commissioner’s Rule 59(e) motion. ...

The panel ... held that the President possessed the authority to remove the Commissioner of Social Security at will.

The final question was the appropriate remedy for claimant, whose appeal to the Appeals Council was denied while Commissioner Saul served under an unconstitutional removal provision. ...

... Because claimant did not show that the removal provision caused her any actual harm, the panel upheld the Commissioner’s decision denying her application for benefits. ...

Sentencing In Fraud Case Involving Thousands Of Phony Claims

      From a press release:

Ivie Shevon Sajere has been sentenced for her role in a conspiracy that defrauded the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) out of nearly $1,000,000.  The conspiracy involved the false filing of thousands of online applications for SSA retirement benefits and FEMA disaster benefits using stolen personal information.  …

“This sentence holds Sajere accountable for her role in this complex conspiracy to defraud the Social Security Administration, alone, of nearly seven hundred thousand dollars. She stole personal information of innocent people and used it to defraud the SSA by abusing its online services,” said Gail S. Ennis, Inspector General, for the Social Security Administration.  …

Social Security Underpaying Many Children

     From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

... Children may receive benefits if they are younger than age 18 and their parent is entitled to Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance benefits. They may also qualify for benefits if they are 18 and older when they are a student at an elementary or secondary school. 

To be entitled to student benefits, beneficiaries must attend an educational institution full-time (at least 20 hours per week) and be age 19 and 2 months or younger. Student benefits cease either the month after the student stops attending school full-time or when the student attains age 19 and 2 months, whichever is sooner. 

We identified 16,632 beneficiaries who were entitled as children and placed in terminated payment status when they reached age 18; however, SSA recorded they remained full-time students past the termination month on the benefit record. 

SSA did not have adequate controls to ensure children who reached age 18 and still attended school received benefits. SSA did not properly continue benefits for 87 of the 100 students in our sample once they reached age 18, which resulted in $357,872 in underpayments. Based on our sample results, we estimate SSA underpaid 14,470 beneficiaries approximately $59.5 million.

We concluded SSA employees incorrectly input student information on beneficiaries’ records while using the Post Entitlement Online System and Modernized Claims System. This resulted in the termination of benefits for students aged 18 despite evidence of their continuing student enrollment. Further, SSA’s Title II Redesign System generally did not create alerts instructing SSA employees to determine whether students were still due benefits past age 18. ...

    I understand that this report may be attracting media attention. It should. This is poor performance.

    Update: I said this was attracting media attention. Turns out it's started even sooner than I thought. Joe Davidson at the Washington Post has a piece out on the problem.

SSA Employees Not So Happy

From: ^Commissioner Broadcast
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 1:15 PM
Subject: Government-wide “Employee Voice” Pulse 3 Survey Results

A Message to All SSA Employees

Subject:  Government-wide “Employee Voice” Pulse 3 Survey Results

A few weeks ago, you received the third Government-wide “Employee Voice” pulse survey as part of a pilot series.  I’m writing to you to share the results and to thank you for taking the time to participate.  Overall, 35 percent of our employees responded, which is higher than the 17 percent Government-wide response rate and suggests that you are invested in improving our agency. 

The President’s Management Council —of which I am a member and is the primary Government-wide body that advises the President and the Office of Management and Budget on management issues across agencies—is using the data from your responses to understand how we can best support you.

You can review our results at the following dashboard: https://d2d.gsa.gov/report/government-wide-pulse-survey-pilot.

Although I am encouraged to see a slight improvement in the opinion that your workload is reasonable, I remain concerned about the level of exhaustion and lack of engagement you report feeling at work.  Please know that I am working with the Administration to make clear the very real effects of the budget we received, which drives hard choices.  I am hopeful that Congress will join me in supporting you as we work to improve service.

I am also concerned that many of you do not feel supported regarding issues of equity, work-life balance, and career advancement.  When I assumed the position of Acting Commissioner, one of my stated goals was to support all employees in pursuing their chosen career path.  We are working to make this a reality.

In the coming weeks, we will be in touch with more details about actions we are taking as we learn from you.

Kilolo Kijakazi, Ph.D., M.S.W.

Acting Commissioner

 

Note: I have had difficulty accessing the dashboard. It's confusing. While I was trying to figure it out, it locked up on me. Now, I  get an error message when I try to go back to it. 

Good luck.

CTH

You Snooze, You Lose

     Social Security got 1,000 applications for the position of Administrative Law Judge by midnight last night and closed the window to new applications.

    I wonder about a couple of things. First, is a process that requires an immediate response a good idea? I know that there are practical reasons for limiting the number of applications but the current process prioritizes those who follow these things closely, often for many years, and most of those are insiders. Second, how many applications would there have been by now if the same job bore the title of "Hearing Examiner"? Is it a good thing if the inclusion of the word "judge" in the job title is the biggest attraction of the job? The word "judge" helps attract qualified applicants and it helps the agency fill positions in areas of the country that aren't generally so attractive to job applicants, but I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the idea of dangling the word "judge" to attract applicants, even though my experience is that the vast majority of Social Security's ALJs try hard to live up to all the good things that the word "judge" implies.

Wanna Be An ALJ?

     Social Security has just announced that it is taking applications for the Administrative Law Judge position (ALJ) with the agency. 

    Act fast. They're only going to consider the first 1,000 applications.

Is There Any Way This Sort Of Thing Happens Without A Malicious Intent?

      From WOIO:

The Cleveland Social Security Office was evacuated Tuesday afternoon after white powder fell out of an envelope an employee opened. …

According to first responders, one employee was opening up a letter in the hallway when the white powder came out of the envelope. …

According to the FBI, after an assessment of the situation on the scene, it was determined there was no threat and employees were allowed to return to work.

9th Circuit Rules That New Regs Supercede Prior Court Precedent

      From the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' summary of its April 22, 2022 opinion in Woods v. Kijakazi:

... [T]he panel held that recent changes to the Social Security Administration’s regulations displaced longstanding case law requiring an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to provide “specific and legitimate” reasons for rejecting an examining doctor’s opinion. For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, that are subject to the new regulations, the former hierarchy of medical opinions – in which the court assigned presumptive weight based on the extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant – no longer applies. While the panel agreed with the government that the “specific and legitimate” standard was clearly irreconcilable with the 2017 regulations, the panel held that the extent of the claimant’s relationship with the medical provider – the “relationship factors” – remained relevant under the new regulations. An ALJ can still consider the length and purpose of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, the kinds and extent of examinations that the medical source has performed or ordered from specialists, and whether the medical source has examined the claimant or merely reviewed the claimant’s records. However, the ALJ no longer needs to make specific findings regarding those relationship factors. ...