Social Security makes periodic general voluntary releases of materials for which Freedom Of Information Act requests have been made. They have recently released what they describe as "CY 2021 Non-Attys Eligible for Direct Fee Payment (Redacted under b6)."
I don't understand this list. It purports to show 44,134 non-attorney reps eligible for direct payment of fees. That can't possibly be right, can it? The list contains at least 40 times more names than what I would have expected.
Posters on an online message board mostly frequented by wannabe Administrative Law Judges seem convinced that Social Security will soon be hiring more ALJs. We’ll see.
Social Security has issued a newly amended section of its HALLEX Manual on Rules and Standards Governing The Conduct Of Representatives. By the way, HALLEX doesn't stand for anything. It's just the name of the agency's Hearings and Appeals Manual. This part of the section appears to be new:
[A] representative must: ...
Disclose in writing, at the time a medical or vocational opinion is submitted to SSA or as soon as the representative is aware of the submission, if:
The representative's employee or any individual contracting with the representative drafted, prepared, or issued the medical or vocational opinion; or
The representative referred or suggested that the claimant seek an examination from, treatment by, or the assistance of, the individual providing opinion evidence.
NOTE 1:
The agency must report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the number of disclosures received pursuant to 20 CFR 404.1740(b)(5)-(9) and 416.1540(b)(5)-(9). To assist with disclosure reporting requirements, Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) and Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) staff will ensure that any disclosures described in this subsection (Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law (HALLEX) manual I-1-1-40 A.5.) are filed into the electronic claim(s) file (eView) using the document type “Required Disclosure – Medical (3076)” or “Required Disclosure – Vocational (1088),” depending on the type of evidence submitted with the disclosure.
NOTE 2:
A representative must submit a separate disclosure each time they submit opinion evidence that meets the requirements in 20 CFR 404.1740(b)(5) and 416.1540(b)(5) and described in this subsection. A single disclosure for multiple opinions that meet those requirements is not sufficient. ...
I question whether the agency can impose an affirmative duty such as this "Required Disclosure" in a footnote to a staff manual. How does a mere staff manual bind members of the public? Doesn't this require notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act? If nothing else, this appears to violate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
It's unclear whether this provision applies to forms provided by attorneys to doctors to complete. Generally, attorneys place a legend on these forms saying where the form came from in order to satisfy the agency. Does this special reporting requirement apply to situations where the attorney merely provides a form but does not help with completing the form?
 |
| Ware |
Today, Hannibal “Mike” Ware joined the Social Security Administration (SSA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) as Acting Inspector General. He will continue to serve in his role as the Inspector General of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), providing leadership to both agencies until a permanent SSA Inspector General is appointed. ...
“I am honored to have the confidence of the President to provide interim leadership within SSA OIG and to simultaneously continue my commitment to the mission of SBA OIG,” said Inspector General Ware. “This dual role underscores the importance of strong, independent oversight across federal programs to ensure they operate effectively and with integrity. I am committed to keeping the heads of both establishments and Congress fully and currently informed of the oversight activities and findings.
Social Security is resuming Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) in October for the new federal fiscal year. The CDRs had been suspended due to the huge backlog of cases awaiting a decision on initial claims. Resuming CDRs is likely to slow down Disability Determination Services (DDS) work on initial claims.
From The Hill:
A group of House Republicans is making a rare move that would force a vote on a bill to reform aspects of Social Security, stirring unrest in the conference.
The bill at the heart of the push, also dubbed the Social Security Fairness Act, seeks to do away with the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), a proposal that backers on both sides of the aisle argue is long overdue.
The bill enjoys support from more than 100 House Republicans, and almost four dozen have cosigned the effort to use what’s known as a discharge petition to force consideration of the bill — and the strategy is rubbing some in the conference the wrong way.
“In a well-run Congress, no legislator signs a discharge petition if you’re a majority. That is a rule that is never broken,” Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) told The Hill. “And the fact that 47 of my colleagues signed a discharge petition shows that we have an utter lack of discipline.” ...
Republicans say the matter was a topic of debate in a conference meeting earlier this week. ...
Regardless of the House vote, it's very unlikely that this legislation will be voted on in the Senate.
...
