true
Full Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by true on Oct 7, 2013 20:49:43 GMT -5
There is an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times today regarding the "60 Minutes" piece on CBS TV yesterday. Read it here. Tiger law needs to read this article!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 21:21:27 GMT -5
I have been interviewed and broadcast on at least a half dozen occasions in my life and criminal defense practice and never did I like how the "broadcast cut" worked for me. Sometimes the focus of the segment seems overly broad as in this case, but a good Attorney could review additional evidence such as the Senate Report and the 2.5 hours of hearing today and deduce that last night’s “60 Minutes” show dealt solely with the one office, which there are individuals in that office and surrounding law offices that are in desperate need of a serious conversation in a Federal Criminal Courthouse near Huntington West Virginia! IMHO!! Obviously you did not watch the 60 minutes special. Because the special i watched showed multiple attorney reps, their ads, and earnings from representing SSA claimants-not just the West VA case. It appeared that they were clearly saying that we(reps) are part of the problem. I don't think that the 60 minutes special was designed for a "good attorney" to deduce anything. It was designed to alert the average Joe to attorney/ ALJ misconduct regarding social security payments and fees. Also, I don't think that the hearing on Cspan would be a priority for the majority of the people who may have seen the special. I personally was made aware of the West VA case over a year ago. But, this show may have more of an negative impact on attorneys that practice disability law then the actual misconduct of the attorney and ALJ in that case. As an attorney that practice in that area, I view the West Va case as an extraordinary isolated incident. I seriously doubt if the public shares this same perception. Obviously, you need to go to cbs.com and re watch the show, I watched it live and have it recorded. I watched it closely as a future ALJ with no connection to the process. Yes they did talk briefly about Binder and Binder, but only in the context as to why this is a lucrative practice and then shifted solely to the West Virginia office as was everything else with this broadcast to include the hearing today. So if you feel it hit too close to home, that's your problem, but the show DID NOT show multiple attorney reps, just E. Conn and the focus of the ALJ in WV.
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Oct 7, 2013 22:14:39 GMT -5
I have to agree with tigerlaw on this. I used to work for the Agency as a writer. There is much abuse in the system. I could not believe the cases that were being paid. Once paid there really is no follow up and folks get benefits for life. I viewed the 60 minutes story and thought it was an attack on the shortcomings of the system and there are many that can be exploited by folks like Conn, not necessarily on the disabled themselves. The segment was really short but if you read the report it focuses on the particular office in WV.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 8, 2013 1:06:43 GMT -5
The 60 minutes segment was more benign than I thought it would be. If you want to see a hatchet job, read Coburn's report. His staff had their marching orders, as well as zero understanding of the medical/vocational/age/educational/literacy-english matrix. For example, the report cites many decisions as improper where onset dates were amended that resulted in favorable grids. That doesn' bother me so much;after all, you can't blame a snake for acting like a snake. What galls me is the AALJs frequent citing to that POS report to support their lawsuit. To avoid confusion, You're, of course, talking about this Coburn report (see first link below) from September 2012, and not the one released yesterday in conjunction with the Senate hearing (see second link below). 60 Minutes also inaccurately reported what was in the September 2012 report, and though their report may have mainly dealt with the WVA debacle, the piece was called Disability USA, they interviewed former attorneys from the biggest mill (not even a law firm actually), allowed Senator Coburn to incorrectly state the amount of people on disability - 1.1 million more than there actually currently are - allowed Coburn to state incorrect information on what needs to be proved by an ALJ for a claimant to be found not disabled at step five, and failed to ask him about changing demographics - aging baby boomers, more women in the workplace - as a possible reason for the increase in the number of those on disabilty (though ALJs have actually been findinfg less folks disabled, percentage wise, the last few years). I found the tenor of the piece, again called, Disability USA, not Disability fraud WVA, to be that SSA disability is rife with fraud and easy to get on. I'm sure that's what the average Joe & Jane watching got out of the piece. A balanced piece would have interviewed someone from NOSSCR and someone representing an advocacy group for the disabled, and gasp, perhaps someone disabled and on benefits. A puff-piece for Senator Coburn, and his point of view, would have been broadcast the night before the senate committee he sits on holds a hearing, with no rebuttal. Oh wait... www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=C72D8A7D-F773-4E31-A84C-5B877CA11316www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0d1ad28a-fd8a-4aca-93bd-c7bf9543af36
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 8, 2013 7:13:54 GMT -5
Judging from the contact I had with my general public family and friends yesterday, I have to agree with mcb that the piece was seen as an indictment of the whole system not just conn/daugherty.
A few points I made in response to my friends and family that watched the show:
1. its not exactly breaking news that there is some fraud in the system. the failure of senator coburn and his ilk to fully fund ssa operations, including the fraud investigators, doesn't help matters.
2. keep in mind that senator coburn is a very wealthy man that's exemplifies a extreme right wing ideology and has had a chubbie for dismantling social security since he came to dc.
3. in no judicial forum other than congress could one documented episode of malfeasance be used to indict the whole system. see delay, tom; craig, larry; jackson, jesse jr; bachman, michelle.
4. note that the story only presented one side of the argument and did not address other, documented reasons for the rise in claims such as the aging population, more women in the workforce, the recession, the lessening of the total of unskilled jobs, crooked docs (they do exist tort reformers) and many of the people coburn included in his number are children and spouses of a disabled individual and get benefits though not disabled themselves. also, the new edition of the dsm mental health diagnotics bible gives such a broad definition of afflictions like adhd and bipolar that huge increases in the # of people with those diagnoses has occurred and more susbequently get paid.
5. senator coburns staff has had 2 years to look at the case files they now assault the alj for deciding incorrectly when the alj had an average of less than 3 hours to look at the same file before having to make a decision. another product of congress' failure tol adequately fund ssa so it can hire enough aljs.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 8, 2013 7:32:22 GMT -5
Tiger law needs to read this article! I have read the article and it doesn't address the REAL issues in the 60 Minutes broadcast, just whines about 60 Minutes beating up on the disabled, which they did not, just Attorney Conn and ODAR at Huntington, WV. Give me a break, I live in one of the top 10 states getting disability and I have relatives and friends that freeload off of the system. You are living in a fantasy world if you think this is not a system that has been abused far too much. Sorry tigerlaw, but the piece did beat up on the disabled as gaming the system to the average "Joe" watching "60 Minutes". Are there some people who get benefits that don't deserve them, absolutely, but is it rampantly out of control, I think not. The fact you (see underlined above) think relatives and friends freeload off the system speaks volumes of what you think about the disabled. While, I don't know those people you speak of, I am sure that they weren't fraudulently given benefits by SSA (unless they lived in Eastern Kentucky or West Virginia). You are painting with a broad brush in your response to true. Is there abuse in the system? Probably some. Has the system been abused far too much? I don't think there is a wide spread conspiracy to defraud SSA or by ALJs at ODAR. There are a few bad apples in every profession, but that doesn't mean the whole profession is bad. Every program that a state or federal government runs is liable to have some abuse, but you don't say it is abused by all. I would rather have one or two "less than honest" individuals receive benefits than refuse to pay benefits to someone truly disabled. I have to agree wholeheartedly with what mcb said about the "60 Minutes" piece. MCB said: "60 Minutes also inaccurately reported what was in the September 2012 report, and though their report may have mainly dealt with the WVA debacle, the piece was called Disability USA, they interviewed former attorneys from the biggest mill (not even a law firm actually), allowed Senator Coburn to incorrectly state the amount of people on disability - 1.1 million more than there actually currently are - allowed Coburn to state incorrect information on what needs to be proved by an ALJ for a claimant to be found not disabled at step five, and failed to ask him about changing demographics - aging baby boomers, more women in the workplace - as a possible reason for the increase in the number of those on disabilty (though ALJs have actually been findinfg less folks disabled, percentage wise, the last few years). I found the tenor of the piece, again called, Disability USA, not Disability fraud WVA, to be that SSA disability is rife with fraud and easy to get on. I'm sure that's what the average Joe & Jane watching got out of the piece. A balanced piece would have interviewed someone from NOSSCR and someone representing an advocacy group for the disabled, and gasp, perhaps someone disabled and on benefits. A puff-piece for Senator Coburn, and his point of view, would have been broadcast the night before the senate committee he sits on holds a hearing, with no rebuttal." MCB was absolutely correct it was a piece that only made one person look good to the average TV viewer and that was Senator Coburn. It looked like a re-election piece for him, except he isn't running for re-election. However, who knows if he doesn't show up as a Republican candidate for President in 2016. For a medical physician, he truly shows a complete lack of compassion for the disabled. I am not for fraud or fraudulent people in the disability system, but the brush Senator Coburn used was painting a picture way too broad of rampant abuse in the system. It made SSA, ODAR, ALJs, attorney representatives, and applicants for disability all look bad. I am sure if Senator Coburn had his way, he would do away with the SSA disability system all together in the U.S..
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Oct 8, 2013 7:49:34 GMT -5
Allow me to offer a few counter considerations. The rise in disability may also be somewhat accounted for by the fact that there are so many new disability options for claimants to choose from today. You say you have pain? Well, you can get disability for that "pain." It's called fibromyalgia - and it's sweeping the nation - contagious almost. I wonder how many of our ancestors had fibromyalgia? I wonder how many would have thought that they or others couldn't work because of fibromyalgia? I wonder what they would have thought of "chronic fatigue?" I'm betting they would likelier have termed it laziness. I wonder how many of them would have agreed that people should be put on the public dole because of depression (which they may have called "melancholy")? Also, I don't know about other judges, but, in at least half of the hearings I hold where the claimant is married or has a significant other, their better half is ALREADY somehow on disability - and the kids too, if there are any. It becomes generational. As for other cases than the types mentioned, more than half are in front of me DIRECTLY because of lifestyle choices they have made or are making: smoking, drinking, drugs, unprotected sex/sharing needles, overeating, failure to follow medical advice, etc. And all this increase in disability is happening at the same time that jobs are becoming ever less physically demanding. I'm not sure how much sense it makes for us to continue to pay out disability in these kinds of cases; I'm not sure how much longer we can AFFORD it.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 8, 2013 8:01:24 GMT -5
Maquereau, my experience is much like yours. I am having a hard time finding definitive diagnosis of fibromyalgia as required by our Reg's. It usually is self-reported by the patient and then becomes a part of the medical records ever afterward.. Same with the generational thing. I used to write for a judge that would note in the decision, "The claimant's spouse is on the dole, but he won't be." That was years ago, I wouldn't try it nowadays what with the bias complaint system..
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Oct 8, 2013 8:12:27 GMT -5
I really don't think fraud, at least the legal definition of it, exists that much, however the system for obtaining benefits needs a massive overhaul.
(1) eliminate the GRID rules. Not only are they terribly outdated, do they actually serve any purpose that reasonably relates to a particular individual's disability? Generalized findings that ANYONE age 50 limited to sedentary RFC is disabled unless they can perform their PRW is crazy. This really does nothing other than make a system which allows people to be paid, regardless of their capacity to perform work. To say that no employer would hire anyone age 50 for a job is ridiculous. Might it be harder based on their work history? Of course. But I don't think the ability to actually get hired should be a criteria in determining whether one is disabled.
(2) mandate that all medical evidence be provided in advance of the hearing. And yes, that means legal sanctions for reps who withhold evidence and/or fail to obtain evidence from known treating sources.
(3) more funding for CDRs with video surveillance. Every case I've ever seen that's had a CDI investigation has clearly shown that the claimant is not disabled. Unfortunately, in the past 5 years I've literally only had 3 CDIs.
(4) overhaul how CEs are performed. Why do we not send them all med evidence? 80% of the time I wonder if the examiner is actually talking about the claimant. And it swings both ways; some CEs make every claimant disabled, whereas others always find minimal findings.
(5) update the DOT. in 2013 there are way more sedentary jobs than in 1970. And why is there no such thing as a less than sedentary job? I could come up with tons of jobs which have a standing/walking requirement of 0 hrs yet according to the DOT, or any VE, no such job exists.
I just don't get the feeling that what happened in PR or WV are widespread incidents in the agency, but the system as a whole could use a lot of tweaks.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 8, 2013 8:17:19 GMT -5
Allow me to offer a few counter considerations. The rise in disability may also be somewhat accounted for by the fact that there are so many new disability options for claimants to choose from today. You say you have pain? Well, you can get disability for that "pain." It's called fibromyalgia - and it's sweeping the nation - contagious almost. I wonder how many of our ancestors had fibromyalgia? I wonder how many would have thought that they or others couldn't work because of fibromyalgia? I wonder what they would have thought of "chronic fatigue?" I'm betting they would likelier have termed it laziness. I wonder how many of them would have agreed that people should be put on the public dole because of depression (which they may have called "melancholy")? Also, I don't know about other judges, but, in at least half of the hearings I hold where the claimant is married or has a significant other, their better half is ALREADY somehow on disability - and the kids too, if there are any. It becomes generational. As for other cases than the types mentioned, more than half are in front of me DIRECTLY because of lifestyle choices they have made or are making: smoking, drinking, drugs, unprotected sex/sharing needles, overeating, failure to follow medical advice, etc. And all this increase in disability is happening at the same time that jobs are becoming ever less physically demanding. I'm not sure how much sense it makes for us to continue to pay out disability in these kinds of cases; I'm not sure how much longer we can AFFORD it. I can accept opposite viewpoints, but I hope the somewhat jaded viewpoint you make isn't clouding decisions made by you an an ALJ. While some jobs may be less physically demanding due to advances in mechanization, many have become much more stressful and quicker paced. I am sure fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue may have existed years ago, but went undiagnosed or were classified as you said "laziness". Did it mean they were lazy? No, it meant they went improperly diagnosed for their conditions. It still happens with some diseases today. Perhaps, you have just seen too many bad cases recently, which has slightly jaded your opinion about disability claimants. Remember, while your job is to properly weigh the evidence and testimony of the claimant and use the Social Security Rules and Regulations to make a proper determination of the claimant's disability claim, your job is not to worry about exactly how much money is left in the trust fund. If you are doing that, you have already prejudged many of your cases. Furthermore, if you are concerned so much about that issue, you probably need to change jobs and become a politician and they make determinations about the Social Security Trust Fund. I am not trying to be flippant or contrary maque, I just think your post came off a little more angry against the present disability system and claimants, than you originally intended. (At least, I hope that is the case.)
|
|
true
Full Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by true on Oct 8, 2013 8:18:20 GMT -5
I really don't think fraud, at least the legal definition of it, exists that much, however the system for obtaining benefits needs a massive overhaul. (1) eliminate the GRID rules. Not only are they terribly outdated, do they actually serve any purpose that reasonably relates to a particular individual's disability? Generalized findings that ANYONE age 50 limited to sedentary RFC is disabled unless they can perform their PRW is crazy. This really does nothing other than make a system which allows people to be paid, regardless of their capacity to perform work. To say that no employer would hire anyone age 50 for a job is ridiculous. Might it be harder based on their work history? Of course. But I don't think the ability to actually get hired should be a criteria in determining whether one is disabled. (2) mandate that all medical evidence be provided in advance of the hearing. And yes, that means legal sanctions for reps who withhold evidence and/or fail to obtain evidence from known treating sources. (3) more funding for CDRs with video surveillance. Every case I've ever seen that's had a CDI investigation has clearly shown that the claimant is not disabled. Unfortunately, in the past 5 years I've literally only had 3 CDIs. (4) overhaul how CEs are performed. Why do we not send them all med evidence? 80% of the time I wonder if the examiner is actually talking about the claimant. And it swings both ways; some CEs make every claimant disabled, whereas others always find minimal findings. (5) update the DOT. in 2013 there are way more sedentary jobs than in 1970. And why is there no such thing as a less than sedentary job? I could come up with tons of jobs which have a standing/walking requirement of 0 hrs yet according to the DOT, or any VE, no such job exists. I just don't get the feeling that what happened in PR or WV are widespread incidents in the agency, but the system as a whole could use a lot of tweaks.
|
|
true
Full Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by true on Oct 8, 2013 8:19:38 GMT -5
I totally agree with sanctioning attorneys!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 8, 2013 8:21:13 GMT -5
I really don't think fraud, at least the legal definition of it, exists that much, however the system for obtaining benefits needs a massive overhaul. (1) eliminate the GRID rules. Not only are they terribly outdated, do they actually serve any purpose that reasonably relates to a particular individual's disability? Generalized findings that ANYONE age 50 limited to sedentary RFC is disabled unless they can perform their PRW is crazy. This really does nothing other than make a system which allows people to be paid, regardless of their capacity to perform work. To say that no employer would hire anyone age 50 for a job is ridiculous. Might it be harder based on their work history? Of course. But I don't think the ability to actually get hired should be a criteria in determining whether one is disabled. (2) mandate that all medical evidence be provided in advance of the hearing. And yes, that means legal sanctions for reps who withhold evidence and/or fail to obtain evidence from known treating sources. (3) more funding for CDRs with video surveillance. Every case I've ever seen that's had a CDI investigation has clearly shown that the claimant is not disabled. Unfortunately, in the past 5 years I've literally only had 3 CDIs. (4) overhaul how CEs are performed. Why do we not send them all med evidence? 80% of the time I wonder if the examiner is actually talking about the claimant. And it swings both ways; some CEs make every claimant disabled, whereas others always find minimal findings. (5) update the DOT. in 2013 there are way more sedentary jobs than in 1970. And why is there no such thing as a less than sedentary job? I could come up with tons of jobs which have a standing/walking requirement of 0 hrs yet according to the DOT, or any VE, no such job exists. I just don't get the feeling that what happened in PR or WV are widespread incidents in the agency, but the system as a whole could use a lot of tweaks. The DOTs are under review and are likely to be changed and updated by 2015 at the latest.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Oct 8, 2013 8:51:35 GMT -5
Perhaps, you have just seen too many bad cases recently, which has slightly jaded your opinion about disability claimants. Remember, while your job is to properly weigh the evidence and testimony of the claimant and use the Social Security Rules and Regulations to make a proper determination of the claimant's disability claim, your job is not to worry about exactly how much money is left in the trust fund. If you are doing that, you have already prejudged many of your cases. Furthermore, if you are concerned so much about that issue, you probably need to change jobs and become a politician and they make determinations about the Social Security Trust Fund. I am not trying to be flippant or contrary maque, I just think your post came off a little more angry against the present disability system and claimants, than you originally intended. (At least, I hope that is the case.)
These were just my general observations - not trying to be terribly confrontational, but there were just a number of comments about how the "60 Minutes" piece was throwing claimants and reps "under the bus" and how some people "hate the disabled" and so forth. So far as I know, very few people "hate" the disabled, though probably more than a few people "hate" non-disabled folks who try to get on the rolls by making mountains out of medical molehills. Also, ALJs perform a number of functions, one of which is to guard the trust fund against unreasonable claims made against it. It's part of the job to look out for the public fisc. Finally, I stand by I disagreeertion that more than half of the cases I hear are directly related to lifestyle choices. Does that mean I do not pay a person whose liver has been totally destroyed by alcohol consumption and related Hep C? No. I don't like it, but I do pay it. At the same time, I think a change will be forced upon us whether we want it or not. Maybe Bernanke can do something to quantitatively ease SSA obligations forever, but I doubt it, and I think there will come a reckoning.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Oct 8, 2013 8:55:08 GMT -5
The above comment could not be edited for some reason - probably related to some stupidity on my part. The sentence beginning with "Finally" should state that "I stand by I disagreeertion ......" Thank You.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Oct 8, 2013 8:56:05 GMT -5
Something weird is going on. It keeps changing what I wrote into something else. WTH?
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Oct 8, 2013 8:56:53 GMT -5
Finally, I stand by I disagreeertion
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Oct 8, 2013 8:57:11 GMT -5
Whatever. I give up.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 8, 2013 9:06:21 GMT -5
MPD, You noted, " your job is not to worry about exactly how much money is left in the trust fund. If you are doing that, you have already prejudged many of your cases."
One of the hats we wear as an ALJ is to protect the Trust Fund.. It's not easy being Green as the Muppets would say.
Peter J. Martinelli, who served as Chief Administrative Law Judge in the Springfield hearings office, explained to Congress how the ALJ wears three hats:
1.a Judge who provides full and fair hearings; 2.a person who assists the claimants by developing the record and their cases, even if they are represented; and, 3.a trustee for the Social Security Trust and General Tax Funds.
Judge Martinelli pointed out that "the last two duties require a judge to, in essence, represent opposing sides."
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 8, 2013 9:10:41 GMT -5
Assertion starts with @$$ Maq not your fault the web page is concerned that we will all be killed by the affront of @$$ertions. Hmm is seems ok with it if I do it? ??
|
|