ALJ To Plead Guilty To Having Sex With Claimant

     From the Birmingham News:

A former Social Security Administration judge in Alabama allegedly had sex with a woman claimant at the federal court house in Tuscaloosa, according to charges involving a public official accepting a gratuity, theft, and obstruction filed against him Tuesday.

Paul Stribling Conger, Jr.,73, of Akron, Ala., also entered a plea agreement Tuesday with the U.S. Attorney's Office to the charges of theft of government property, obstructing justice, and accepting a gratuity, according to court documents. ...

In July 2013, Conger was presiding over the hearing of a claimant, a woman identified as T.M.

T.M. was subsequently approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, which included future monthly payments and retroactive benefits. In November 2013, T.M. discussed Conger with a mutual acquaintance of theirs, identified as Individual A.

"Individual A" related information to T.M. about Conger that led T.M. to approach Conger in an effort to receive her retroactive SSI benefits, totaling about $10,000  in a lump sum because T.M. needed the money all at once.

On Nov. 19, 2013, T.M. met Conger in his chambers at the federal courthouse in Tuscaloosa. T.M. was seeking to receive the retroactive SSI benefits she had been awarded in a lump sum. ...

At the federal courthouse, on that occasion, the two engaged in a sex act and other sexual contact. T.M. and Conger remained in communication by phone, including calls and text messages over the ensuing weeks. ...

During the month of December 2013, Conger met with and paid a person only identified as "Individual B" money to obtain T.M.'s phone and destroy it. Conger provided information from T.M.'s SSA files, including T.M.'s confidential medical information and social security account number, in order to assist Individual B in locating T.M. ...

Your Social Security Account Card

A Longevity Benefit?

     From John Turner at the Pension Policy Center:

In the United States, poverty rates for seniors increase at older ages.  The rates are higher for persons age 75 and older than for persons age 65 to 74.   Poverty rates increase at older ages because relatively more people fall into poverty as they age than exit poverty due to death. Persons who live longer may fall into poverty because of various life events -- their spouse dies, they have higher medical or long-term care expenses than expected, or their investment returns are worse than projected. As Americans live longer, they face an increased risk of outliving their savings.

This outcome of poverty rates increasing at older ages is not inevitable. In Ireland and Poland, poverty rates actually decrease for those age 75 and older compared to those age 65 to 74.  The explanation for lower poverty rates at older ages is a low-cost targeted policy intervention called a longevity insurance benefit. A longevity insurance benefit is a benefit that starts at an advanced age, such as age 82. Both Ireland and Poland provide such a benefit for their oldest citizens.  ...

Triple Amputee Denied Social Security Disability And I'm Not Surprised

     Social Security recently denied a disability claim filed by a triple amputee. I'm not surprised. The problem is that the woman had been a stay at home mom for ten years prior to the illness that led to the amputations. Generally, you must have worked five of the last ten years before becoming disabled in order to draw Social Security disability benefits based upon your own earnings.
     For decades some have called for some sort of caregiver credits as part of Social Security. This idea has never received serious attention in the past and probably won't in the future. However, should Hillary Clinton not just win but ride into office on a tsunami that brings Democrats into control of both houses of Congress, anything's possible. Clinto has called for unspecified improvments in Social Security.  The Iowa Electronic Market gives Democrats an 18-25% chance of gaining control of both houses of Congress.

Proposed New Regs On Medical Evidence Coming

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has cleared a set of proposed new regulations on medical evidence considered in Social Security disability claims. Below is the agency's brief description of the proposal. We won't know exactly what's in the proposal until it's published in the Federal Register, which should happen soon. Remember it's only a proposal. A new administration can change it significantly or can it.

We are proposing several revisions to our medical evidence rules. The proposals include redefining several key terms related to evidence, explaining what is and is not evidence, revising our list of acceptable medical sources (AMS), revising how we consider and articulate our consideration of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings, revising who can be a medical consultant (MC) and psychological consultant (PC), revising our rules about treating sources, and reorganizing our evidence regulations for ease of use. These proposed revisions conform with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), reflect changes in the national healthcare workforce and in the manner that individuals receive primary medical care, simplify and reorganize our rules to make them easier to understand and apply, allow us to continue to make accurate and consistent decisions, and emphasize the need for objective medical evidence in disability and blindness claims.

The Biggest Doofus

     Eric Conn is facing a malpractice lawsuit filed on behalf of a class of 1,487 of his former Social Security clients. It's been going on for some time now. However, as of a few days ago, Conn still hadn't notified his malpractice insurance carrier, even though he was facing a hearing on the case.  I know that if you're facing criminal prosecution some civil things might fall between the cracks, but this is still hard to fathom.

    If you want to think that all Social Security attorneys are crooks and that Conn just got caught, I can't stop you, but I can tell you that everything about the Conn fiasco seems incredibly weird to me. I have trouble believing the allegation of bribery because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) he is alleged to have bribed was approving almost all claims anyway, not just for Conn's clients but for everyone's clients. Why bribe a man to do something he was going to do anyway? I have trouble believing that an ALJ would be able to assign to himself large numbers of one lawyer's cases and then approve them. That couldn't be hidden and is so obviously improper that there would be many people who would send complaints up the line. It would be like making a daily trip to a Walmart store, picking up a big screen TV and walking out the door with it without stopping to pay for it. You might get lucky and get away with that for a day or two but not day after day. There would be too many people watching. We'll see how the prosecution goes but as I've said before, to me Conn looks more like a doofus than a criminal mastermind. His failure to notify his malpractice insurance carrier is more proof of how big a doofus he is.

Last Call For Single Decisionmaker

     From a notice that Social Security is publishing in the Federal Register tomorrow:

We are announcing the extension of tests involving modifications to disability determination procedures authorized by 20 CFR 404.906 and 416.1406. These rules authorize us to test several modifications to the disability determination procedures for adjudicating claims for disability insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act ) and for supplemental security income payments based on disability under title XVI of the Act. This notice is our last extension of the “single decisionmaker” test, as we will phase out the test until elimination in 2018 . This notice also extends the separate “prototype” test.

She Was Right

     The Washington Post is reporting on an 80 year old woman who has been living on the D.C. streets for 16 years complaining that she couldn't get Social Security to straighten out her benefits. It turns out she was right. Social Security did owe her money. They've just paid her $99,999 and probably owe her more. Yes, if you know much about Social Security, it's obvious that she should have done things differently but people make dumb Social Security mistakes all the time and this woman has a better excuse than most. Despite the lady's protestations to the contrary, it's obvious that she has serious psychiatric problems. The bigger issue is that Social Security field offices often fail people like this who need extra help. That would happen some even with good staffing but it becomes more frequent when staffing is as tight as it is now. The consequences of failing to adequately serve people who have special needs can be terrible.