|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Oct 15, 2013 14:50:49 GMT -5
If the problem that needs to be addressed is too many people receiving benefits, and we assume that the ALJs are correctly applying the statutes and regs, then the statutes need to be changed.
If the problem is that the ALJs are not applying the law correctly resulting in too many awards, then those ALJs should be identified and re-trained. If the problem is that there is a backlog created by too many cases and the failure of the claimants to produce all their records timely, then the addition of an adversary from the SSA who would serve as a watchdog of sorts for this would help. However, another solution for this problem would be to empower the current staff and ALJs to remove a case from the docket (essentially continue it without reset) once it is learned that the records are not complete, resulting in no dismissal but also reducing the backlog. If a litigant is caught attempting hide records, his claim should be dismissed as a sanction. In essence, make it the litigant’s burden to produce a complete file, or to get an attorney to do it for him if he can’t. If the attorney doesn’t do it, he should be fined. These procedures are used in thousands of courts thousands of times a day and work well. There is no reason SSA’s system needs to be different.
Those of us from the litigation side have seen the advantages of an adversarial system. True, sometimes harsh results are reached, but sometimes they are justified by the parties’ conduct. We are in a business that naturally involves conflict, procedures, rules, and consequences. When you try to remove those aspects from the business of legal adjudication of rights you get people trying to game the system (W Va) and unflattering reports on CBS.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 15, 2013 15:23:26 GMT -5
Sandiferhands I do agree completely with your first two paragraphs/sentences. However, I do disagree with the third paragraph. There has been collusion between attorneys and judges in adversarial proceedings and between prosecutors and judges in criminal cases, so to insinuate that an adversarial system will stop collusion like in West Virginia or others is not true. Collusion can occur in any proceeding, adversarial and non-adversarial, the only difference being it is sometimes harder to catch in a non-adversarial setting.
I have done both litigation and non-litigation and feel comfortable in either one, but I think unless we create a (Gideon v. Wainwright) free attorney for all litigants who cannot afford one it is best left as non-adversarial. Don't tell me that clients get free representation because they don't unless a non-profit attorney takes their case (and in many areas non-profits do not take all types of cases), otherwise they pay the attorney a fee out of their past-due award. Some people really need the past-due award to make ends meet and pay past due bills. Hence, you in reality would be making it unfair for the poorest of the nation to acquire their disability benefits in an adversarial system.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Oct 15, 2013 18:20:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the thoughtful response Moo. Good points all, and I did not mean to make it sound oversimplified. I think there is a role for adversarial engagement that would streamline and sharpen the process, but the nature of the claims before the SSA does not lend itself to the type of full-scale war that you see in most litigation.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 15, 2013 19:44:30 GMT -5
I was hoping to generate a discussion on the specific attributes of the adversarial process in the context of ODAR proceedings. No one advocates for gideon v wainwright, 6th amendment rights in an administrative proceeding -- just an expansion of the current attorney fee award provisions. Some do not seem to understand that "scorched-earth" does not occur in the vast majority of current adversarial administrative proceedings. That is because the procedural rules are carefully crafted to build administrative efficiency into the process, which is easily done.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 19, 2013 7:23:56 GMT -5
SOCIAL SECURITY NEWS YOUR SOURCE FOR NEWS AFFECTING THE U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COPYRIGHT CHARLES T. HALL
OCT 15, 2013
An ALJ With A Plan Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Armstrong has a plan to save Social Security's disability programs that the Washington Examiner has seen fit to publish. Here are the highlights: Time limited benefits for some people found disabled. Have someone representing the government at Social Security hearings on disability claims. More continuing disability reviews. " Raise the retirement age used in determining disability payments in tandem with the rest of America." Move SSI to the states. By the way, ALJ Armstrong has a history of approving Social Security disability claims at a low rate. Labels: Disability Policy
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 19, 2013 7:38:28 GMT -5
SOCIAL SECURITY NEWS YOUR SOURCE FOR NEWS AFFECTING THE U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COPYRIGHT CHARLES T. HALL OCT 15, 2013 An ALJ With A Plan Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Armstrong has a plan to save Social Security's disability programs that the Washington Examiner has seen fit to publish. Here are the highlights: Time limited benefits for some people found disabled. Have someone representing the government at Social Security hearings on disability claims. More continuing disability reviews. " Raise the retirement age used in determining disability payments in tandem with the rest of America." Move SSI to the states. By the way, ALJ Armstrong has a history of approving Social Security disability claims at a low rate. Labels: Disability Policy Should we expect any other plan from him? Perhaps, he can run for Congress and try to implement his political agenda. It's a good thing he is fair and impartial.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 19, 2013 8:47:20 GMT -5
The states will never accept SSI.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 19, 2013 9:48:58 GMT -5
they can't afford medicare and medicaid as it is. as unpopular as this particular ALJ's plan (as may well be said about the tea party's agenda) may be, I think it is where we are headed as a nation. the current system is simply unsustainable. parts of this plan may need to be implemented, coupled with new revenue sources (read: taxes) and even this won't begin to do it. the real kicker is sustained economic growth ala the Clinton years. that is the only way we get anywhere near 17 trillion.
|
|