|
Post by factfinder on Jun 23, 2011 11:54:18 GMT -5
I disagree with FF, and I do not think any adjustment of benefits is required. The easiest fix would be to adjust significantly upward, or remove altogether, the current income cap on taxes withheld for social security (currently $106,800). Another option: there are still county and city governments who were allowed to opt out of paying into social security years ago. If those local governments were required to opt in, that could also add significant revenue. Other options exist, but those two could generate significant contributions. Just my two cents... Appreciate your point of view, but trust me, there are lots of folks out there who feel they pay enough and will never get their moneys worth. If you increased benefits for those who pay over 108K that might make them feel better, but usually these type of folks take steps to have a solid retirement anyway. Also, there is much talk and pressure to reduce benefits for folks if they have too much income. These folks would then feel doubly put upon because they would feel they were paying more and getting nothing or even less. So equity is good or at least a little is - even to those better off. Re "easy." May be "easy" as long as your Ox is not being gored, but if they reduce your pay by 7% as you go over 108K you may not think it is so easy or equitable. But, I think it would be really good to index 108K or whatever, but if you do that and you are a federal employee who has had no pay increase in several years that too may be annoying. Bottom line-simplistic answers are not simple. I do stick by my thought that folks who have a very small or irregular stream of income and somehow qualify for DIB are an issue. I think they are over represented in the cases I have for sure - or at least seem to be. Finally, I am against anything that removes all personal responsibility from the equation and I think you (and most other responsible folks) probably are too. We need to share a little more risk-certainly that is the way things are going now and a lot of folks are going to be hurt by it. As long as Americans want things and do not want to pay taxes for these things, the pressure will be on. Right now federal employees are the target of the Tea Party, etc. I might be more productive to be targeting contractors who earn 20% plus profit on government contracts (especially defense) and pay out benefits far better than you can imagine, but that is complicated and some of those contractors finance the Tea Party types and all of them have lobbyists far better paid than NARFE or the NTEU, for example. My two cents. Please excuse the soap box.
|
|
|
Post by runningman on Jun 23, 2011 12:44:38 GMT -5
Factfinder, I appreciate your opinion. It's great to engage in meaningful discussion without animosity.
With that, I am a federal employee (an ALJ) and I would be subject to any increase in the current income cap on taxes taken out for social security. My pay, too, has been frozen. But, this option helps others who cannot afford to put some of their own money aside for retirement (especially now when so many are out of work, or are working for much less than they did previously). There are many more of those people out there than those of us who earn over 106,800.
I have heard arguments from those in the upper part of the income bracket that they do not get out what they contribute. However, Social Security was designed to provide income to those persons who worked, paid into the program, and stopped working (for whatever reason).
There are certainly a number of people who come before us with irregular work histories or income streams. But, it's also important to remember that reasons may exist for that. I worked very little during my first year of law school (and I did not go directly from college to law school). I also worked for a county that opted out of paying into social security. For those years, I show little or no quarters of coverage. There are other reasons, too - working under the table, mothers or fathers working part-time to save the expense of day care, multiple attempts to keep a full time job, etc. There are also some who have no design to work hard and it shows. We see a lot of people who have nowhere else to go for help. However, if they pay into the program and either become disabled or retire, they are still eligible for the benefits.
I agree, however, that there are numerous other ways to help. Defense contractors, as you suggested, who are guaranteed profits (cost plus) in contracts is unfathomable in other areas of business.
I appreciate your point of view and the ongoing discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jun 29, 2011 14:54:04 GMT -5
From Propmaster's post: "If an individual has no work experience or worked only off-and-on or for brief periods of time during the 15-year period, these jobs generally do not apply." It seems to me that jobs that last only a few months should not be considered to be PRW in cases where claimants have spotty work records. This is a good point. I always kind of assumed "off and on for brief periods" meant those people who might do some lawn cutting and some light mechanic work at odd times, etc., but that probably wouldn't be SGA. In this respect, that seems at odds with "did it long enough to learn it." And that's why there are lawyers and judges.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Jul 3, 2011 19:12:00 GMT -5
WSJ published a problem with no CDRs. Bottom line, things will have to change - we will have to get control of our dockets, and some of the following changes will have to be made - also to get the costs under control: Good suggestions! Additionally, I would like to see the option to award a fixed term of disability (maybe up to 3 years) as an alternative to the current "permanent" disability with a CDR recommendation that usually never gets done. This way, for the claimant's who may need help right now (i.e. just had a back surgery), we can award benefits without worrying about them staying on the rolls forever because of the CDR backlog. And for those that doesn't get better, they can always file again and prove their case. We had some sensible reforms back in the mid-90s when the alcohol/drug & obesity listings were removed. Hopefully we'll be able to have some additional reforms in the near future to make the program less wasteful. This is exactly what I have been advocating since my first day on the bench!
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Jul 13, 2011 14:59:40 GMT -5
"Where it is established that the claimant can hold a job for only a short period of time, the claimant is not capable of substantial gainful activity." Gatliff v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 172 F.3d 690, 694 (9th Cir.1999) "We must decide whether a Social Security claimant's ability to perform successive jobs, generally lasting no more than two months, renders him capable of substantial gainful activity. We conclude that it does not, and therefore reverse the judgment of the district court. Substantial employment cannot be pieced together from a collection of insubstantial attempts. This is one instance in which the maxim e pluribus unum does not apply." openjurist.org/172/f3d/690
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Jul 25, 2011 14:50:59 GMT -5
4. Judges, not the RCALJ, must have the discretion to disapprove fees to crummy lawyers.
I think they already do have that discretion, the appeal goes to the RCALJ and if the lawyer did a crummy job and you can convince the RCALJ, case is closed.
|
|
|
Post by fourhounds on May 14, 2012 15:12:22 GMT -5
One of the most prominent "outlier" judges from Kingsport Tn has been suspended and his cases reassigned to other judges in the office. Agency statistics indicate that he had only denied one case this FY.
|
|
|
Post by x on May 14, 2012 18:54:22 GMT -5
Very unlikely that this resulted directly from the ALJ's outlier outcome distribution. More likely, he/she was not given any benefit of the doubt in connection with some other issue.
|
|
|
Post by northwest on May 15, 2012 8:38:36 GMT -5
Very unlikely that this resulted directly from the ALJ's outlier outcome distribution. More likely, he/she was not given any benefit of the doubt in connection with some other issue. Such as a DUI arrest. See socsecnews.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 15, 2012 8:40:53 GMT -5
Charles Hall Blog, 5/15/2012:
ALJ Krafsur Resigns After DUI Arrest Gerald Krafsur was an Administrative Law Judge (ALJs) at Social Security's office in Kingsport, TN. He was arrested on May 2, 2012 for driving under the influence and speeding. My understanding is that he has now resigned. I don't know what happened after the arrest but Krafsur had a history of approving almost all claims that he heard. What has happened when other ALJs got into this sort of trouble? Don't try to tell me this hasn't happened before. With almost 1,500 ALJs, it's no insult to say that drunk driving charges are going to happen from time to time.
Update: The Wall Street Journal says that Krafsur is on paid administrative leave.
Maybe this had nothing to do with his "outlier" status??
|
|
|
Post by mcb on May 15, 2012 9:33:25 GMT -5
Here's a full link to to the WSJ article if you're not a subscriber. (Apparently, the Agency is unhappy with ALJ Krafsur, who is 78, due to the way he runs his hearings. He also sued the Agency last year). online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304192704577404933989242596.html?mod=googlenews_wsjMr. DeVault said the agency's criticism of his client had nothing to do with his high approval rate and instead was focused on what the government viewed as improper demeanor during hearings. He said, for example, that the government had accused Mr. Krafsur of asking disability applicants about post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms when such questions weren't necessary. "He's surprised by it and irritated by it, but he's not devastated," said Mr. DeVault. Efforts to reach Mr. Krafsur were unsuccessful. ... Mr. Krafsur's relationship with the agency was already strained. He sued the Social Security Administration last year and alleged that his superiors were retaliating against him because he refused to pay disability attorneys large fees in certain cases when he felt like he was doing much of the work. The agency has moved to have the case dismissed, but it is still pending in federal court.
|
|
|
Post by x on May 15, 2012 22:49:23 GMT -5
Difficult to see an ALJ not having latitude to thoroughly inquire about PTSD symptoms when Listing 12.00 specifically provides in part: "At least one detailed description of your typical reaction is required." Closest thing to a heightened standard of proof you'll find in the whole disability program.
On the other hand, insisting on a claimant re-counting initial trauma (often childhood/sexual) is much more problematic.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on May 18, 2012 9:19:06 GMT -5
ALJ disposition data shows this judge has issued 423 favorables and 3 unfavorables this year.
IMO, that alone SHOULD be sufficient basis for investigation/discipline. Whatever the basis for paying such a high percentage, IMO it CANNOT reflect a reasonable and responsible exercise of discretion and application of the law. I would feel the same if he had paid 3 and denied 423.
Moreover, if he is just going to pay (nearly) everyone anyway, I'd question why he would need to probe into claimants' past trauma.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 27, 2013 13:58:06 GMT -5
Has anyone heard anymore about ALJ Gerald I. Krafsur? Is he still on administrative leave? Has he resigned his position? I remember when he was an ALJ in Michigan years ago. I was curious as to his status.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Nov 27, 2013 16:33:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 27, 2013 18:13:00 GMT -5
It is my understanding he is still on administrative leave and has sued the HOCALJ of his office and the Commissioner to get his position back. The case is pending decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. He supposedly hasn't worked as an ALJ since 2012. I don't condone his pay rate or some of his actions, but I was curious as to what occurred, since I knew him back in the early 1990's.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Nov 27, 2013 21:20:29 GMT -5
He held hearings in my local ODAR a few years ago. I had a client withdraw the Request for Hearing because it was a crappy case and not winnable. That day he called me into ODAR for me to explain why I withdrew the RFH. I did so and he denied my request and then payed the case. I was amazed.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Nov 28, 2013 14:36:53 GMT -5
He held hearings in my local ODAR a few years ago. I had a client withdraw the Request for Hearing because it was a crappy case and not winnable. That day he called me into ODAR for me to explain why I withdrew the RFH. I did so and he denied my request and then payed the case. I was amazed. That is absolutely bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Nov 28, 2013 22:11:56 GMT -5
Sadly, my office is over an hour from that ODAR. He stayed until I could get there, making staff and security stay late. I was politely reprimanded for not "diligently representing my client". I was paid on the case. But when there is no medical evidence, I believe it is inexcusable to not at least discuss withdrawing the RFH with the client to save time and resources of the agency. And to pay a case when a represented claimant has made a fully knowledgable decision to withdraw is absolutely shocking to me. Needless to say, few reps complained about him visiting our office. And I can't really blame them when he did what he did with my case.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Nov 29, 2013 0:30:04 GMT -5
It is my understanding he is still on administrative leave and has sued the HOCALJ of his office and the Commissioner to get his position back. The case is pending decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. He supposedly hasn't worked as an ALJ since 2012. I don't condone his pay rate or some of his actions, but I was curious as to what occurred, since I knew him back in the early 1990's. I don't know how he would've signed off on 20 decisions last month without returning to work.
|
|