|
Post by workdrone on Oct 6, 2013 14:32:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 6, 2013 14:37:00 GMT -5
Might be first salvo in a reform movement. I recall reading somewhere that the SSDI fund will be broke in 2016
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 6, 2013 15:07:57 GMT -5
the most important thing is the projected influx of new claims. people, not even congress, can argue with simple mathematics. the demographic patterns are already established. does the ssa disability new claim filing rate coincide with the huge number of people turning 40, 50 and 60? I want to hear from the General Accounting Office on that. And making the cases adversarial will substantially increase the need for additional ALJs. There will be motions practice, discovery, status conferences, settlement conferences, evidentiary hearings, PROTRACTED adversarial hearings (some lasting weeks or months), and post hearing briefs. If ODAR goes to adversarial proceedings, other agencies like OMHA and others will also likely do so. If not, they will face credible due process challenges. I have never been comfortable with the concept of ALJs being judge, jury, and prosecutor, who also "helps out" claimants, all while serving the public interest.
|
|
|
Post by trekker on Oct 6, 2013 16:37:20 GMT -5
I would say that after years of practice, it is like a welfare worker once told me (in the early 90's), been there, done that. Groundhog day.
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Oct 6, 2013 16:41:23 GMT -5
Does not sound like it will be a piece that advocates for more ALJs. On the other hand, maybe the emphasis on litigation experience is becoming more clear. The problem judge in Huntington WV appears to have had plenty of litigation experience, so using your argument, the agency should be de-emphasizing litigation experience.
|
|
|
Post by lildavey on Oct 6, 2013 19:36:19 GMT -5
I think the judges came off quite well. So there's one bad apple, and he's apparently under DOJ investigation. Not to say there aren't others, but the claimant's lawyers were the villains of the piece, clearly.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 6, 2013 20:15:46 GMT -5
I agree with you Lildavey, I think we came off okay. I had hoped for so much more, but feared so much worse.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Oct 6, 2013 20:31:46 GMT -5
Coburn’s voting record shows his hatred for the disabled: (l) voted against expanding TRICARE coverage of autism; (2) voted against the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorizatin Act (CHIP); (3) voted against Individuals with Disabilities Education Amendment; (4) voted against the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. And, he is a doctor? Also voted against the nomination of Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor but voted for Samuel Alito.
I thought this was very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 6, 2013 22:00:17 GMT -5
I thought that there was a lot of inaccuracies in the piece. For example, stating that 25% of the [300 favorable only] ALJ decisions reviewed by Coburn's office were decided incorrectly. My recollection of the report is that 22% of the claims were legally inadequate, not incorrect. Many of us recall being told in ALJ training, at least I was, just to point out 2 or 3 pieces of supportive evidence along with a short rationale when writing or fit-formatting a favorable decision. Also, who were the folks on Coburn's staff - and their qualifications - that made these legal determinations about the inadequacies of the decisions?
Also is anyone surprised that a claimant's rep might send their client out for a PCE or an MCE when the agency has already done so and the PRFCs & MRFCs don't support a finding of disability. Especially if there is new evidence in the record that the DDS CEs didn't have access to when they where making their estimates, givng their opinions. Now if the forms the MDs, PhDs are signing off on are already filled out, as they allege that Conn's doctors were doing, that's a different kettle of fish.
Finally, for interviewing Frye Zahn for over 2 & 1/2 hours, they certainly didn't get much screen time.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 6, 2013 22:12:51 GMT -5
As a former claimant's rep, I gotta say that I agree with a lot of what Charles Hall of the Social Security New Blogspot had to say: socsecnews.blogspot.com/OCT 6, 2013 Getting Thrown Under The Bus The Sixty Minutes piece on the Social Security disability programs has run. It didn't seem fair or balanced to me that what I do for a living was represented solely by Binder & Binder and Eric Conn. I don't think that anyone familiar with this field of legal practice thinks that Binder & Binder (which isn't a law firm anyway) or Eric Conn is representative of Social Security attorneys. I've never had a physician examining claimants in my office. I don't know anyone who does. That arrangement presents obvious credibility problems that seem to me to make doing it worse than useless. Why was this presented as if it were a common practice? I was displeased to see two Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) trying to throw Social Security disability claimants and their attorneys under the bus -- and the ALJs didn't even get to promote their government representative plan. I hope that they realize that throwing other people under the bus didn't make ALJs look good in anyone's mind. The biggest problem with the show is that it relied heavily upon Senator Coburn's report saying that he found that many Social Security disability recipients weren't disabled. Coburn's report never revealed who made those determinations that Social Security got it wrong. I think it can be taken for granted that the people making this determination for Coburn had an ax to grind but beyond that is the question of whether they were even familiar with the definition of disability in the Social Security Act and regulations. Clearly, Coburn has only limited familiarity himself. He wanted to emphasize that a claimant should be denied as long as they could do any job. No, it's any job existing in significant numbers in the national economy considering age, education and work experience. This is far from a trivial distinction since consideration of "age, education and work experience" play heavily in most disability determinations. Social Security isn't supposed to deny the claim of a retired coal miner because he can still be a nuclear physicist. There will be a Senate hearing tomorrow. I hope some Democratic Senators bother to show up and challenge Senator Coburn. I also hope the witness list is balanced, unlike this Sixty Minutes piece.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 7, 2013 6:01:03 GMT -5
I think the judges came off quite well. So there's one bad apple, and he's apparently under DOJ investigation. Not to say there aren't others, but the claimant's lawyers were the villains of the piece, clearly. I don't think for two-plus hours of taping the ALJs that was whittled down two minutes or less made them look good. It insinuated that Senator Colburn was correct about rampant fraud in disability cases. I am sure this isn't the point these ALJs were trying to make. The only person to the watching public who came out looking good was Senator Colburn. Quite frankly, his facts and insinuation was incorrect, but the public wouldn't know that at all. Hence, it was a hatchet piece IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Oct 7, 2013 6:41:14 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.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 7, 2013 8:16:14 GMT -5
There is an additional segment on the 60 minutes website and Sen C was just on CBS this morning talking anout subject. He did take a potshot at the alj's essentially saying they are not following their own rules and are granting benefits in cases where person is not disabled.
Some change ahould be coming sunce they estimate that the fund will run out of money in 2015. Either the payroll tax will increase, benefits will be reduced or the system will need an overhall. The cases already in rhe system will exhaust the fund
I read somewhere that Great Britain had all their disability cases reviewed and took many many people of the disabled rolls
|
|
|
Post by trekker on Oct 7, 2013 9:38:03 GMT -5
One of the more misleading parts of the story, IMHO, was that taxpayers are footing the bill to pay the attorneys. (DISCLAIMER: I am legal aid and the only time we are paid is through EAJA fees when we win at federal court -- something that is much rarer these days.) With the exception of SSI, payment comes from the claimant's back award which comes from the DI trust fund. And I agree that this story was not as bad as I was expecting (the NPR piece was far worse).
And claimants are supposed to be reviewed (or they are to the extent that the agency gets adequate funding to conduct CDR's) at least every 3 years unless the diary notes a different time period. Exceptions being made for certain listing-level and aged beneficiaries.
|
|
true
Full Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by true on Oct 7, 2013 12:33:01 GMT -5
That story is offensive and not entirely representative of all claimants and all reps. While we do not have a perfect system, it certainly does not hand out disability checks like a McDonald's drive thru, as portrayed in the 60 minutes Special. The average ALJ approves about less than half of their cases, and more than half of those are truly deserving of benefits. Therefore, the ALJ's or the reps did not cause the shortage in the trust fund. The 60 Special should focus on Congress borrowing money from the Social Security Trust fund to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 7, 2013 15:26:32 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 18:31:18 GMT -5
The "60 Minutes" show was dealing with only one office and if you watch the entire 2.5 hours of the hearing today, you would know that also. If the DOJ takes up this case, a few folks are going to jail for a few minutes more than "60"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 18:35:01 GMT -5
That story is offensive and not entirely representative of all claimants and all reps. While we do not have a perfect system, it certainly does not hand out disability checks like a McDonald's drive thru, as portrayed in the 60 minutes Special. The average ALJ approves about less than half of their cases, and more than half of those are truly deserving of benefits. Therefore, the ALJ's or the reps did not cause the shortage in the trust fund. The 60 Special should focus on Congress borrowing money from the Social Security Trust fund to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The "60 Minutes" show was dealing with only one office and if you watch the entire 2.5 hours of the hearing today, you would know that also. If the DOJ takes up this case, a few folks are going to jail for a few minutes more than "60"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 18:51:31 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!!
|
|
true
Full Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by true on Oct 7, 2013 20:46:30 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.
|
|