|
|
Post by masondixon on May 7, 2016 13:29:02 GMT -5
The OCALJ letter defies the reality of the situation. Conn is charged with multiple counts of fraud and rackteering. If a USDC has enjoined him from representing individual claimants before SSA or USDC, ODAR should do the exact same thing until further notice. Let this crumb bum pursue his own action against SSA. It will go nowhere. The same principle applies with regard to processing of any fees. They should be suspended by SSA until such time a USDC has lifted the order. The fees being approved by SSA are arguably the potential product of a fraudulent act. This business as usual crapola demonstrates just how poorly ODAR is run and how ridiculous and incompetent SSA's OGC is.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 7, 2016 17:08:45 GMT -5
The OCALJ letter defies the reality of the situation. Conn is charged with multiple counts of fraud and rackteering. If a USDC has enjoined him from representing individual claimants before SSA or USDC, ODAR should do the exact same thing until further notice. Let this crumb bum pursue his own action against SSA. It will go nowhere. The same principle applies with regard to processing of any fees. They should be suspended by SSA until such time a USDC has lifted the order. The fees being approved by SSA are arguably the potential product of a fraudulent act. This business as usual crapola demonstrates just how poorly ODAR is run and how ridiculous and incompetent SSA's OGC is. But again... Innocent until proven guilty and THEN once there is a conviction, ODAR will act accordingly. Just because the landscape looks like it is cut and dry does not mean we get to jump to the conclusion before it is proven.  |
|
|
|
Post by marathon on May 9, 2016 8:08:57 GMT -5
The OCALJ letter defies the reality of the situation. Conn is charged with multiple counts of fraud and rackteering. If a USDC has enjoined him from representing individual claimants before SSA or USDC, ODAR should do the exact same thing until further notice. Let this crumb bum pursue his own action against SSA. It will go nowhere. The same principle applies with regard to processing of any fees. They should be suspended by SSA until such time a USDC has lifted the order. The fees being approved by SSA are arguably the potential product of a fraudulent act. This business as usual crapola demonstrates just how poorly ODAR is run and how ridiculous and incompetent SSA's OGC is. Just because the landscape looks like it is cut and dry does not mean we get to jump to the conclusion before it is proven. I can't seem to post the picture from my mobile device, but this totally reminded me of the Jump to Conclusions Mat from Office Space. |
|
|
|
Post by jessejames on Dec 30, 2016 5:01:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mjǿlner on Dec 30, 2016 13:03:25 GMT -5
Thank you for the link, I just can't bring myself to hit the like button. While it is a great article about the gut wrenching effect that Mr. Conn's representation has inflicted on hundreds of good folks, attorneys like Mr. Conn are why the rest of us who strive to do a good job are held in such low esteem by so many members of the public and by the jurors who I've appeared before this year. |
|
|
|
Eric Conn
Dec 30, 2016 14:45:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by dragon on Dec 30, 2016 14:45:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Dec 30, 2016 15:08:07 GMT -5
That seems to leave claimants in a bit of a pickle. Sure, they can go forward without representation or ask to further postpone a case that may perhaps be growing roots, but man oh man, that has potential for other problems, IMO. Granted, even if another representative was assigned immediately, that person would need to get up to speed, (which of course means delay) but it seems to me that going forward with "just call his office" as the answer makes it look like no one has any idea of what's happening. I'm not suggesting that claimants are told all of the dirty details, but I guess I'm stumped as to why TPTB couldn't/didn't come up with a better plan that would be least harmful to claimants. Many state rules say that in such cases the attorney has to send written notice, certified return receipt, to each client advising them of his status. He must submit the ceritfied return receipts for inspection (clearly disciplinary boards don't leave anything to the attorney's imagination).Letters must also be sent to every court before whom that attorney has been admitted or practices! However, the attorney must first be found to have done something. In the case of the Pennsylvania AG who was indicted,the court ordered her suspended though I believe there was some type of mini-hearing prior to the order, so at least in that state Mr Conn's attention could be brought to the attention of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Committee. So someone needs do it if it hasn't been done already if they want to see him not proceed & or have clients notified. |
|
|
|
Post by Reverend Geek on Dec 30, 2016 17:23:57 GMT -5
I guess I'm one of the 150 lawyers fighting alongside Pillersdorf to help the former Conn clients. While I have not had to talk anyone off the ledge, all of the former Conn clients with whom I've spoken have expressed disbelief and despair. One client, who has a good case for a federal appeal, is separating from his wife to prevent his new debt to SSA from affecting her income and standard of living.
Here is something that a number of former Conn clients find especially frustrating:
When the AC orders a rehearing upon suspicion of fraud, the rehearing does not consider whether the claimant was or became disabled after their original decision date. The only issue is whether the claimant was disabled when Conn's ALJ (David Daugherty) issued the favorable decision 2-7 years ago. At the time of the original decision, the files did not contain much helpful information. However, after the claimants started receiving benefits, they got better medical care and the supplemental files showed whether they really are disabled or not. Current doctors have even written letters attesting that their patients are unfit for work. The ALJs at the rehearings, unfortunately, do not give the more recent medical records much weight unless they specifically relate back to the time period in question. Thus, former Conn clients are being denied all benefits despite what they believe to be strong evidence that they disabled now, if not soon after their original decision.
Some district offices are allowing these people to file new claims with onset dates within the DLIs that align with the new medical evidence. Some, unfortunately, are not.
I agreed to represent one client in USDC E.D. Ky. pro hac vice, but I will have to help him find other representation.*
-Rev.
*I currently practice for an insurance defense with a large firm that has allowed me to help former Conn clients. This past week I received two offers: one to take over a friends social security practice and the other to practice employment law for a federal agency. The comments on several threads discussing fed vs. private practice have been an immense help with this momentous decision to become a fed.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Dec 30, 2016 20:22:24 GMT -5
I guess I'm one of the 150 lawyers fighting alongside Pillersdorf to help the former Conn clients. While I have not had to talk anyone off the ledge, all of the former Conn clients with whom I've spoken have expressed disbelief and despair. One client, who has a good case for a federal appeal, is separating from his wife to prevent his new debt to SSA from affecting her income and standard of living. Here is something that a number of former Conn clients find especially frustrating: When the AC orders a rehearing upon suspicion of fraud, the rehearing does not consider whether the claimant was or became disabled after their original decision date. The only issue is whether the claimant was disabled when Conn's ALJ (David Daugherty) issued the favorable decision 2-7 years ago. At the time of the original decision, the files did not contain much helpful information. However, after the claimants started receiving benefits, they got better medical care and the supplemental files showed whether they really are disabled or not. Current doctors have even written letters attesting that their patients are unfit for work. The ALJs at the rehearings, unfortunately, do not give the more recent medical records much weight unless they specifically relate back to the time period in question. Thus, former Conn clients are being denied all benefits despite what they believe to be strong evidence that they disabled now, if not soon after their original decision. Some district offices are allowing these people to file new claims with onset dates within the DLIs that align with the new medical evidence. Some, unfortunately, are not. I agreed to represent one client in USDC E.D. Ky. pro hac vice, but I will have to help him find other representation.* -Rev. *I currently practice for an insurance defense with a large firm that has allowed me to help former Conn clients. This past week I received two offers: one to take over a friends social security practice and the other to practice employment law for a federal agency. The comments on several threads discussing fed vs. private practice have been an immense help with this momentous decision to become a fed. Thank u for your work on these cases. Appreciate the real world insights re these claimants as well |
|
|
|
Eric Conn
Dec 31, 2016 9:52:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ba on Dec 31, 2016 9:52:26 GMT -5
That puts one in quite a dilemma. I doubt the, "I was just following orders," defense would save an ALJs law license. Federal statutes require SSA (maybe most all federal agencies'?) employee licensed attorneys to not submit complaints, etc. they otherwise are ethically obligated to report to their and other Bars and allow the agency to decide what to do with the reporting. And since this is Federal law, it preempts your State/territorial Bar legal requirement for reporting. So, while your Bar will welcome the complaint straight from you, it can't help you with SSA's reprisal and it can't get you in trouble if you don't report as directed by the Federal law.
It's not fun--you can have an attorney doing wildly unethical things right before your eyes and you cannot report it yourself else you risk being in (legitimate) hot water with SSA. And you can all guess how often the higher ups that decide whether to pursue these things decide to pursue these things when you run them up the chain
Technically, the agency review of a complaint you seek to send to the bar is for Privacy Act purposes to sanitize the complaint and, after that, should be submitted to the relevant bar. That's the theory, the practice...well, that's a different kettle of fish. |
|
|
|
Post by trekker on Jan 3, 2017 13:28:17 GMT -5
Since the Reverend fessed up, I will as well. I too am one of the 150 attorneys helping the legal aid program in eastern KY represent clients. I have had to talk at least two clients off the ledge. Most of these claimants were hard working individuals who have very little education and were injured on the job. Many had no health insurance even though they worked for a mining company. They also rarely had workers comp coverage. The mining companies have gone out of business and there is little other work to replace the mines so competition for any job is stiff. While the work is rewarding on one level, it has left me with a very empty feeling because I can't recreate the past. None of us can. And as the Reverend said, the claimants are prohibited from proving disability after the date of the Daugherty decision. And any new application is treated as just that, a new application with all the limitations that come with it (SSI = benefits start on the date of application; SSDI = benefits start one year prior to the date of application if the onset date is earlier). So there are huge overpayment notices going out for anyone who was not successful on the "review" of a very narrow time frame. What would you do if you got an O/P notice for $105,000? What about your now adult child who is told that SSA is going to start garnishing their paycheck, intercept tax refunds, or garnish their bank accounts? SSA has a wide variety of tools at their disposal to do all of this. I could go on but I won't. It's too depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jan 3, 2017 13:32:39 GMT -5
What about Congress? When there were over payments to California National Guard troops as a result of nefarious actions by rogue recruiters, Congress stepped in and passed legislation to help them. Congress could certainly do the same here. But will they?
|
|
|
|
Post by msp on Jan 3, 2017 13:47:18 GMT -5
rp , my instinct tells me, no, Congress will not step in and pass anything but gas to help these folks. I would love to be wrong. However, based on public outcry, combined with a couple of tweets from the PE, Congress did just reverse themselves today on a plan to strip authority from OCE. With a new year, comes renewed hope. Not a lot, but I'm starting with a glimmer.
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jan 3, 2017 17:22:20 GMT -5
rp , my instinct tells me, no Congress will not step in and pass anything but gas to help these folks. I would love to be wrong. However, based on public outcry, combined with a couple of tweets from the PE, Congress did just reverse themselves today on a plan to strip authority from OCE. With a new year, comes renewed hope. Not a lot, but I'm starting with a glimmer. It is amazing what can happen when you shine a little light on something....that is what I was suggesting in this instance. Perhaps those that are representing these poor folks could get their reps involved and shine that same type of light. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jan 4, 2017 21:15:38 GMT -5
That puts one in quite a dilemma. I doubt the, "I was just following orders," defense would save an ALJs law license. Federal statutes require SSA (maybe most all federal agencies'?) employee licensed attorneys to not submit complaints, etc. they otherwise are ethically obligated to report to their and other Bars and allow the agency to decide what to do with the reporting. And since this is Federal law, it preempts your State/territorial Bar legal requirement for reporting. So, while your Bar will welcome the complaint straight from you, it can't help you with SSA's reprisal and it can't get you in trouble if you don't report as directed by the Federal law.
It's not fun--you can have an attorney doing wildly unethical things right before your eyes and you cannot report it yourself else you risk being in (legitimate) hot water with SSA. And you can all guess how often the higher ups that decide whether to pursue these things decide to pursue these things when you run them up the chain
The trouble with this analysis is that the State Bar holds your law license, not the federal pre-empting Agency. The latter requires you to have a law license. Am I going to entrust the OGC to decide the fate of my privilege to practice law? Please. The idea that I, as an ALJ cannot make such a decision is an affront to the Office. If forced, I would gladly litigate the issue. I doubt that my Agency would put me in that position. It is a DR in my State not to report any attorney who violates a DR. I'll bet it is the same for you. You also have an oath of office to uphold. So where does your duty lie? |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jan 8, 2017 20:45:47 GMT -5
I would think there are ways to get a complaint filed -- even if you can't file it yourself -- just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 20, 2017 20:48:50 GMT -5
For those of you looking for this thread, it is no longer in existence. I inadvertently deleted it. Didn't intend to do it; it was an accident. Sorry. You are welcome to continue the discussion here. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jul 20, 2017 21:00:11 GMT -5
For those of you looking for this thread, it is no longer in existence. I inadvertently deleted it. Didn't intend to do it; it was an accident. Sorry. You are welcome to continue the discussion here. Pixie Hmmmmmm.... Pixie -- OJ, Manson, and Conn would say there is a conspiracy at work here! |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 20, 2017 21:01:40 GMT -5
Let me sum up the prior thread:
Eric Conn is on the run. Eric Conn has announced where he went in social media. But we don't know where he is.
Eric Conn: Boo! Hiss! Bad man! Evil man! Hurt his clients! Worse still, hurt ODAR!
He's a man! He's a myth! He's a legend!
What he's not is in custody.
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Jul 20, 2017 21:07:54 GMT -5
Let me sum up the prior thread: Eric Conn is on the run. Eric Conn has announced where he went in social media. But we don't know where he is. Eric Conn: Boo! Hiss! Bad man! Evil man! Hurt his clients! Worse still, hurt ODAR! He's a man! He's a myth! He's a legend! What he's not is in custody. Very concise -- gary -- you never ever cease to amaze me! Well done! |
|
